The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is the only possible explanation? Really?

God did it.

OK, lets run with that. So God did it. And what difference does that make. It doesn't prove that God has done anything since, that God is even still in existence.

Maybe God's destroyed himself in order to create the universe.

That wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do ... and He is omnipotent and omniscient ... so that logically rules out that idea.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Lovely and all as that is, it means that praying to him is pointless.

Prayer builds on our personal relationship with God.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

That wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do ... and He is omnipotent and omniscient ... so that logically rules out that idea.

But creating a living organism in his likeness who disobeys him at the first opportunity is? Or that after that that organism became so entrenched in evil that the only option was to kill not only that organism but every other organism on the planet (save for two of each). Or that when even that seemed not to work, he sent his secret weapon, himself, disguised as a normal person, down to rid the world of sin, yet we see that he actually didn't change anything at all and couldn't even manage to get all those that he met to agree to follow the lord.

J C wrote: »

Prayer builds on our personal relationship with God.

With a few caveats. He 1st has to exist, which the only response to my point that he could have destroyed himself was to say it wasn't very intelligent yet you follow Jesus on the basis that he gave up his life for us.

The 2nd is he has to be listening, which based on the continued evil to visits even the most holy would leave to open to question, never mind that those that are apparently close to god through direct conversation like priests never get any signal from him that raping kids is bad.

And 3rd that, if the 1st two are indeed true, that he will choose to give you special treatment over all his other children simply because you have been lucky enough to have been taught about him.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

Do you know of any complex functional specified information (CFSI) that has ever been spontaneously generated?

The fact is that wherever the origin of CFSI has been established it is always intelligently generated ... indeed the detection of CFSI is the method being used by SETI to search for extraterrestrial intelligent life.
Quote:-
"The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is a collective term for scientific searches for intelligent extraterrestrial life, for example, monitoring electromagnetic radiation for signs of transmissions from civilizations on other planets."

The irony is that science has discovered unmistakable signs of Extra-Terrestrial Intelligent action right here on Earth ... in the CFSI of living organisms ... but their materialistic-only biases prevents them from accepting the evidence that their eyes are seeing.

Oh it has, has it. I must have missed that scientific study that proved that an intelligent being created life. So far, all we know is that we don't know.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

Facts certainly don't scare me ... like the fact that God exists ... and can be proven to exist, from what He has created.

Romans 1:19-21 New International Version (NIV)
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Unlike some of you guys, I embrace that fact that God exists ... and I look forward to being Saved, when I have 'shuffled off this mortal coil'.

So your proof that your book is indeed factual is to give some verses from the book! Really.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, at the time was that Galileo was wrong ... and the courts of the time ruled likewise.

And who was in charge of the science at that point in time? I'll help you out, the church. As soon as Galileo refused to be quite, didn't they try him for heresy? science has advanced more in that 400 years than God has been able to achieve in the last 6000.

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

And who was in charge of the science at that point in time? I'll help you out, the church. As soon as Galileo refused to be quite, didn't they try him for heresy? science has advanced more in that 400 years than God has been able to achieve in the last 6000.

... and most of that advance was achieved by scientists who were Christians.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

... and most of that advance was achieved by scientists who were Christians.

Totally irrelevant what faith they were. You might as well point out that most of them like football, or enjoy swimming. It has no bearing on the work they do.

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

Oh it has, has it. I must have missed that scientific study that proved that an intelligent being created life. So far, all we know is that we don't know.

... but here's the thing ... we do know ... but the materialistic bias currently within science ... refuses to acknowledge it ... and is in denial over it.
... but sometimes a scientist admits that there could be a 'signature' in life that proves it was intelligently designed.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

... but here's the thing ... we do know ... but the materialistic bias currently within science ... refuses to acknowledge it ... and is in denial over it.
... but sometime the mask slips ... and a scientist admits that there could be a 'signature' in life that proves it was intelligently designed.

Right, so no actual prof that god did it. Could have been anything. Could have been a god, even a god that destroyed itself (you seem to have dismissed this based on nothing at all).

So from intelligence, you have fashioned a god that worries about who you sleep with, what you think about, who you pray to and even they deem it not up to standard will send you to eternal punishment.

You got all that from the 'start of live seems terribly complicated'?

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right, so no actual prof that god did it. Could have been anything. Could have been a god, even a god that destroyed itself (you seem to have dismissed this based on nothing at all).

Are you accepting that there is a 'signature' of applied intelligence in living Complex Functional Specified Information?

Leroy42 wrote: »

So from intelligence, you have fashioned a god that worries about who you sleep with, what you think about, who you pray to and even they deem it not up to standard will send you to eternal punishment.

You got all that from the 'start of live seems terribly complicated'?

This is a separate isssue ... which is the kind of God we are dealing with.

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

Totally irrelevant what faith they were. You might as well point out that most of them like football, or enjoy swimming. It has no bearing on the work they do.

Its highly relevant when you are claiming that :-

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... and most of that advance was achieved by scientists who were Christians.

Originally Posted by Leroy42
And who was in charge of the science at that point in time? I'll help you out, the church. As soon as Galileo refused to be quite, didn't they try him for heresy? science has advanced more in that 400 years than God has been able to achieve in the last 6000.

... your implication is that science has progressed because of materialism ... when the founders of modern science ... and most of its practitioners since, were Christians.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

Are you accepting that there is a 'signature' of applied intelligence in living Complex Functional Specified Information?

No, I am trying to follow your logic. If, if, there was intelligence (to which no one anywhere has been able to offer any proof, I even asked that you do so and you failed to provide anything) but I was making the point that that in itself does not move your position any closer to being reality.

It could just as easily be that we were the result of the god destroying itself and we are the outcome of that. You dismissed this as unintelligent, yet accept that this very same god sent himself down to be murdered for us.

J C wrote: »

This is a separate issue ... which is the kind of God we are dealing with.

I absolutely agree, which is why I do not understand why you keep trying to bring up the lack of knowledge of how life started. It is a totally separate issue to the kind of god that you believe in.

Start of life, evolution etc, they all have nothing to do with the god you pray to. Lets face it, even the catholic church believes in evolution, and you know why, because they see that it doesn't effect whether one can believe in the god they believe in.

J C wrote: »

Its highly relevant when you are claiming that :-


... your implication is that science has progressed because of materialism ... when the founders of modern science ... and most of its practitioners since, were Christians.

You make my case. Once they broke free of the ideological doctrine of the church and were able to use their own free thinking they made far more discoveries in a much shorter space of time.

You seem to be trying to imply that their faith was the deciding factor in whether they were good or not, But the previous 1600 years would beg to differ. So what changed around the time of Galileo? Was it that they became more or less focused on what the bible was saying?

In terms of why christians make up the most practioneers, I think, again, you are making a basic mistake in assumption. It is not because they are christian, but that christians tend to be in the countries with the means and resources to focus on those areas.

Do you think that Americans are inherently better at understanding space than Irish people, or do you think that maybe its because Americans have the resources to be able to develop in that area?

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Its highly relevant when you are claiming that :-


... your implication is that science has progressed because of materialism ... when the founders of modern science ... and most of its practitioners since, were Christians.

Most of them were white too, what's your point?

Leroy42

Just going back over Genesis, and I have a question.

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

So Adam and Eve take the fruit and God casts them out. But if by eating the fruit their eyes would be opened to good and evil, then it must follow that they didn't know what good and evil was prior to that.

How can God therefore blame a person for doing anything wrong when they clearly have no basis on which to judge whether of not they should do something.

Safehands

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just going back over Genesis, and I have a question.



So Adam and Eve take the fruit and God casts them out. But if by eating the fruit their eyes would be opened to good and evil, then it must follow that they didn't know what good and evil was prior to that.

How can God therefore blame a person for doing anything wrong when they clearly have no basis on which to judge whether of not they should do something.

It's a metaphor. It's not an actual event

Professor Moriarty

Safehands wrote: »

It's a metaphor. It's not an actual event

Which bits of the Bible are events and which bits are metaphors?

Timberrrrrrrr

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Which bits of the Bible are events and which bits are metaphors?

Yes :pac:

Leroy42

Safehands wrote: »

It's a metaphor. It's not an actual event

Ok, a metaphor for what?

And which part is the metaphor? The whole book or just the bit I quoted?

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just going back over Genesis, and I have a question.



So Adam and Eve take the fruit and God casts them out. But if by eating the fruit their eyes would be opened to good and evil, then it must follow that they didn't know what good and evil was prior to that.

How can God therefore blame a person for doing anything wrong when they clearly have no basis on which to judge whether of not they should do something.

They do have a basis for judging whether they should do it or not. God has already told them that they should not, and warned them that doing it will bring death.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Which bits of the Bible are events and which bits are metaphors?

False dichotomy there, since large chunks of the bible are neither events nor metaphors.

But, OK, for those texts which could be historical narrative or could be metaphorical, "is it historical or metaphorical?" is a valid question. But perhaps a prior question is "Does it matter?". Does the import or significance of the passage vary depending on whether it is historical or metaphorical?

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

False dichotomy there, since large chunks of the bible are neither events nor metaphors.

But, OK, for those texts which could be historical narrative or could be metaphorical, "is it historical or metaphorical?" is a valid question. But perhaps a prior question is "Does it matter?". Does the import or significance of the passage vary depending on whether it is historical or metaphorical?

I love your posts. Very thought provoking. That last question makes my brain itch. Does a historical event have more significance than a metaphorical one? The trouble with the OT Bible is how do we know which are which? Is any of it historical?

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

I love your posts. Very thought provoking. That last question makes my brain itch. Does a historical event have more significance than a metaphorical one? The trouble with the OT Bible is how do we know which are which? Is any of it historical?

The stuff in Genesis, Exodus, etc - very unlikely to be historical. Or, at least, we can never know that it is historical. The stuff from later books? Lots of that is or may be historical, or at least partly historical.

But, I come back to the question; so what? The stories in Genesis aren't included because they actually happened; who, now, would care that Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt, even if that were actually true? How does the sad fate of Lot's wife affect any of us, in any degree? Stories like this are included because they were considered by those who compiled the scriptures to say something of transcendent significance about the human condition, about human relationships, about the relationship between humanity and God, etc. Obviously, for the most part, whatever these stories say, whatever they mean, doesn't really depend on whether they actually happened or not.

Which is not to say that they didn't happen. Obviously, we might be sceptical about stories that relate supernatural happenings, divine intervention, etc. But not all do. For example, you might have a story about the Hebrews fighting some other group, and the consequences of that. We can't know, at this remove, if it's actually historical, but it certainly could be. But, even if it is, it doesn't end up in the scriptures simply because it happened; it ends up because somebody thinks there are important things to be learned from it, important lessons to be drawn. And of course in order to impart those things, underline those lessons, the story might get distorted from a strictly journalistic account. Or, it might be a complete invention. Mostly, we can't know. Mostly, it doesn't matter.

The important, interesting question is rarely "did this story actually happen?" It's "why is this story here?"

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

They do have a basis for judging whether they should do it or not. God has already told them that they should not, and warned them that doing it will bring death.

But without knowing the difference between right and wrong how can they know?

Since they are living in paradise, do they even understand what death is? (even if you take the line that 'death' in the context of the story means removal from God, how can they understand the significance of that since they had never encountered it.

If a person is aware that there their actions are wrong, ie a baby hitting their brother/sister, is it right to then punish them for it? Even if you tell them not to do it, if they do not have the comprehension to understand that it is wrong then how can you judge them on it? To them the act is neither good or bad, right or wrong. It simply is.

And I don't agree that it is a metaphor. The entire basis of original sin, and thus baptism and the need to constantly ask for forgiveness, not to mention that woman have been cast of the foundation of mens temptation due to it, is based on this story.

Without it then the entire commencement of religion is without basis.

But if we run with the metaphor idea, what is the idea that it is trying to get across?

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

The stuff in Genesis, Exodus, etc - very unlikely to be historical. Or, at least, we can never know that it is historical. The stuff from later books? Lots of that is historical.

But, I come back to the question; so what? The stories in Genesis aren't included because they actually happened; who, now, would care that Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt, even if that were actually true? How does the sad fate of Lot's wife affect any of us, in any degree? Stories like this are included because they were considered by those who compiled the scriptures to say something of transcendent significance about the human condition, about human relationships, about the relationship between humanity and God, etc. Obviously, for the most part, whatever these stories say, whatever they mean, doesn't really depend on whether they actually happened or not.

The important, interesting question is rarely "did this story actually happen?" It's "why is this story here?"

But on that basis, should we give equal weight to any story? If you do not believe that this part is true, then how can you decide when the stories stop and the real stuff begins?

Did Jesus really resurrect or is that a metaphor? And who made up these stories?

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

False dichotomy there, since large chunks of the bible are neither events nor metaphors.

But, OK, for those texts which could be historical narrative or could be metaphorical, "is it historical or metaphorical?" is a valid question. But perhaps a prior question is "Does it matter?". Does the import or significance of the passage vary depending on whether it is historical or metaphorical?

False dichotomy? Let's see. So if you take the events and the metaphors out of the Bible then what is left?

It matters if you offer this book to people and you tell them to base their faith on it. It then matters very much whether what is being described is fact or metaphor.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

But on that basis, should we give equal weight to any story? If you do not believe that this part is true, then how can you decide when the stories stop and the real stuff begins?

Why do you need to decide that? Does it matter? Why?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Did Jesus really resurrect or is that a metaphor?

There you've picked one where it does matter. Or, at any rate, most of the Christian tradition insists that it matters. There are liberal and progressive Christians who see the resurrection as something that is a purely spiritual reality, but the overwhelming majority of the Christian tradition insists no, it actually happened, like it says on the tin. There really was an empty tomb. And Paul, in his own writings, concedes that, if the resurrection is not a fact, then Christianity is pointless.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And who made up these stories?

Those of them that are made up? We mostly don't know. They are the product of a culture, not the work of identifiable individuals.

But, again, does the fact that we mostly can't name the authors of these texts matter? If so, why?

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It matters if you offer this book to people and you tell them to base their faith on it. It then matters very much whether what is being described is fact or metaphor.

Only if you're telling them to base their faith in its factuality.

Leroy42

The fact we can't name the author does not in itself matter, although it does remove our ability to judge their context.

It matters as the bible is seen, and widely accepted, as the word of god. If it nothing but a collection of stories, made up by some random people, then it would have a serious impact on how the book itself it treated, as well as the opinions of people who claim to derive their belief's from such a book.

On your point about why it matters what parts are true or not. Take Genesis for example. If you don't believe this to be true, on what basis that you believe that God created the world? And if god didn't create the world, on what basis does one believe that he has anything to do with mankind? And if the story of Adam and Eve, and original sin, is not true, that on what basis did Jesus need to come to earth to die on our behalf?

I fail to understand how any person can cherrypick the parts of the bible to believe and what to ignore simply to suit themselves. Jesus never decreed that any part of, what we now call the OT, was incorrect. Do you not think that he was perfectly placed to explain that to everyone?

But back to my original question, which the metaphor claim has diverted. How can a god cast out Adam and Eve for doing wrong when they had no ability on which to judge the right or wrong or their actions since they had not eaten from the tree?

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Only if you're telling them to base their faith in its factuality.

So which parts are not factual? Genesis, exodus? What about the twelve apostles, Jesus dying on the cross? The resurrection? His miracles? Noahs ark?

The virgin birth, Herods killing of the innocence? Are the Israelites the chosen people, and the land of Israel the promised land? Cause if that ain't true then there has been, and will continue to be, a lot of blood split because of it.

Safehands

Leroy42 wrote: »

So which parts are not factual? Genesis, exodus? What about the twelve apostles, Jesus dying on the cross? The resurrection? His miracles? Noahs ark?

The virgin birth, Herods killing of the innocence? Are the Israelites the chosen people, and the land of Israel the promised land? Cause if that ain't true then there has been, and will continue to be, a lot of blood split because of it.

My beliefs about which parts are factual:

Genesis: no, we've discussed that before, provabley impossible to be true in so many places.

Exodus: probaby not.

What about the twelve apostles: that is the new testament and may have some basis in fact.

Jesus dying on the cross: Historically probably true.

The resurrection: The big one. I personally would suggest no.

His miracles: I would say parables which morphed into facts as time passed

Noahs ark: absolutely not true.

The virgin birth: absolutely untrue, a myth like many other religions.

Herods killing of the innocence: never happened, certainly not as told.

Are Israelites the chosen people, and the land of Israel the promised land? No.

If that ain't true then there has been, and will continue to be, a lot of blood split because of it.
Yes and that is the tragedy of it all.

robinph

Safehands wrote: »

His miracles: I would say parables which morphed into facts as time passed

How does that work?

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Only if you're telling them to base their faith in its factuality.

I'm not a cleric. How do people (e.g. clerics) who tell others how to interpret the Bible know which bits are events (or facts if you will) and which bits are metaphors?

Safehands

robinph wrote: »

How does that work?

If you take the wedding feast and the wine. Jesus would have said, I am like the fine wine, up to now all you had was poor quality wine, now I am changing all that. I am changing the water you are drinking at a wedding onto the finest wine meaning up until now your beliefs were basic, from now on I will give to the best way to live.
It is a metaphor.

Leroy42

Safehands wrote: »

If you take the wedding feast and the wine. Jesus would have said, I am like the fine wine, up to now all you had was poor quality wine, now I am changing all that. I am changing the water you are drinking at a wedding onto the finest wine meaning up until now your beliefs were basic, from now on I will give to the best way to live.
It is a metaphor.

But based on that he didn't actually do anything. So we have some guy that simply talks a good game.

Of course, that doesn't mean that his opinions on the best way to live life were not good. Although one needs to take account of the fact that he never claimed slavery was wrong. It is all metaphor, then why do people treat Jesus with the reverence that we do?

Safehands

Leroy42 wrote: »

But based on that he didn't actually do anything. So we have some guy that simply talks a good game.

He was saying things no-one else said. He wasn't just 'some guy's, whether he was devine or not.

Leroy42

Safehands wrote: »

He was saying things no-one else said. He wasn't just 'some guy's, whether he was devine or not.

Are you suggesting that no-one else had ever said love your neighbour, or be more focused on your spirit than material goods?

Come on now. He is not held up because he said these things, he is held up because he is the son of god, who died for our sins and resurrected, thus defeating the power of death.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

So which parts are not factual? Genesis, exodus? What about the twelve apostles, Jesus dying on the cross? The resurrection? His miracles? Noahs ark?

The virgin birth, Herods killing of the innocence? Are the Israelites the chosen people, and the land of Israel the promised land?

In relation to each of those, I can only repeat the question I have already asked several time, and that you have made no attempt to answer. Why do you think it matters?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Cause if that ain't true then there has been, and will continue to be, a lot of blood split because of it.

That doesn’t make sense. Whether or not that particular claim (that God made a covenant with Moses granting Israel the promised land, as described in Exodus) is historically factual, a great deal of blood has been spilt over that particular piece of real estate. The amount of blood split doesn’t depend at all on the factuality of the claim.

Does it depend on people believing the claim to be factual? No, I don’t think we can say that it does.

True, Exodus does describe God making this promise, whereupon the Israelites go onto the land and beat seven kinds of snot out of the Canaanites who are already there. But of course this event is described in the very texts whose factuality you are questioning. So, it may never have happened. Or, there may have been an invasion of some kind, but the notion of the Covenant may have arisen after the event, as a way of expressing the Israelites belief in their claim to the land, and divine sanction for it. So you can’t say that this event happened or, if it happened, that it was motivated by a belief that the Exodus account of God making a Covenant with Moses is historically accurate.

After that, of course there were many invasions of the land, and much fighting. The Egyptians invaded; the Assyrians; the Phoenicians; the Babylonians; the Persians; the Macedonians; the Romans; the Mamelukes; the Ottomans; the British. And each time, or most times at any rate, there was resistance, and lots of fighting. But of course none of the invaders were motivated by any supposed Covenant between God and Moses; they had the usual material motivations of lust for power and lust for wealth. And while any resistance they met may have invoked the Covenant, it would be foolish to imagine that they resisted because of the Covenant; we don’t need to appeal to belief in a Covenant, and still less to a belief in the factuality of the Exodus account of the Covenant, to explain why the inhabitants of any land might resist invaders.

Leroy42

Sorry, Peregrinus, are you really asked me why I think the factual accuracy of something that people believe in and based their actions on, is of any importance?

I have already dealt with this point. People can believe in whatever they wish, but once they start to impose those beliefs on other people, and are allowed to do so because of those beliefs, then yes I think it should be based on something more that simply what they want to think.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, Peregrinus, are you really asked me why I think the factual accuracy of something that people believe in and based their actions on, is of any importance?

I have already dealt with this point. People can believe in whatever they wish, but once they start to impose those beliefs on other people, and are allowed to do so because of those beliefs, then yes I think it should be based on something more that simply what they want to think.

Uh-huh? So you reckon, say, that there are people who believe that the Slaughter of the Innocents (you mentioned that one, not me) is a historical event, and they are "imposing" that belief on others?

You got any evidence for that, or is it just something you believe?

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Uh-huh? So you reckon, say, that there are people who believe that the Slaughter of the Innocents (you mentioned that one, not me) is a historical event, and they are "imposing" that belief on others?

You got any evidence for that, or is it just something you believe?

Creationists.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Uh-huh? So you reckon, say, that there are people who believe that the Slaughter of the Innocents (you mentioned that one, not me) is a historical event, and they are "imposing" that belief on others?

You got any evidence for that, or is it just something you believe?

24% of Americans believe that the bible is the literal word of God http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

In terms of imposing that particular belief, what it does, and the reason for it being made up, was to increase the 'magic' of Jesus. Just like the story of having to go to Bethlehem. It fits in with the narrative people are expecting (the scriptures) and the slaughter was a story to show that God himself was working to defeat the all powerful Herod.

Now if you believe one part of it, say Noahs Ark, then why would you not believe another part of it?

Safehands

Leroy42 wrote: »

24% of Americans believe that the bible is the literal word of God http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

In terms of imposing that particular belief, what it does, and the reason for it being made up, was to increase the 'magic' of Jesus. Just like the story of having to go to Bethlehem. It fits in with the narrative people are expecting (the scriptures) and the slaughter was a story to show that God himself was working to defeat the all powerful Herod.

Now if you believe one part of it, say Noahs Ark, then why would you not believe another part of it?

Yes and if you meet these people they will tell you that you are damned to spend eternity in hell's fires if you don't believe. That is some threat! "Either believe what I believe or suffer the consequences".

"But what you believe makes no sense"

"That doesn't matter. You'd better believe it too or the consequences for you will be horrific"

No pressure!

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

24% of Americans believe that the bible is the literal word of God http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

In terms of imposing that particular belief, what it does, and the reason for it being made up, was to increase the 'magic' of Jesus. Just like the story of having to go to Bethlehem. It fits in with the narrative people are expecting (the scriptures) and the slaughter was a story to show that God himself was working to defeat the all powerful Herod.

Now if you believe one part of it, say Noahs Ark, then why would you not believe another part of it?

Well, as I don't believe in the literal truth of the Noah's Ark story, I'm probably the wrong person to whom to put the question.

And, in the interests of nit-picking, I'd point out that a belief that the Bible "is the literal word of God" is not the same as a belief that stories in the bible are literally true. God's omnipotent, but he is incapable of using metaphor, allegory, parable, etc? That makes no sense at all. The "literal word of God" can employ any genre of writing; that's pretty much inherent in the concept of omnipotence.

It would be interesting to know how many Americans think that all the stories in the Bible are literally true. Sadly, Gallup didn't think to ask that question. Still, lets assume that the figure is, in fact, 24%.

71% of Americans identify as Christian, and a further 2% as Jewish. That gives us (71% + 2% - 24% 49% of Americans who profess a religious faith which ascribes value and significance to these scriptures, but who don't profess to believe that they are accurate narrations of historical events.

And this comes back to the question that I keep asking; why does it matter? You clearly think it does matter, and you have expressed surprise at my asking the question. But there's clearly a large body of Americans for whom it doesn't seem to matter - they ascribe value and meaning to the scriptures, without needing to believe them to be necessarily historically accurate - so your perception that it matters is evidently not universally shared.

Ironically, your perception is shared by fundamentalist biblical literalists, who insist that the only valid way to read the scriptures is as reliable historical narrative. If you share that perception you're in slightly surprising intellectual company, no?

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, as I don't believe in the literal truth of the Noah's Ark story, I'm probably the wrong person to whom to put the question.

And, in the interests of nit-picking, I'd point out that a belief that the Bible "is the literal word of God" is not the same as a belief that stories in the bible are literally true. God's omnipotent, but he is incapable of using metaphor, allegory, parable, etc? That makes no sense at all. The "literal word of God" can employ any genre of writing; that's pretty much inherent in the concept of omnipotence.

It would be interesting to know how many Americans think that all the stories in the Bible are literally true. Sadly, Gallup didn't think to ask that question. Still, lets assume that the figure is, in fact, 24%.

71% of Americans identify as Christian, and a further 2% as Jewish. That gives us (71% + 2% - 24% 49% of Americans who profess a religious faith which ascribes value and significance to these scriptures, but who don't profess to believe that they are accurate narrations of historical events.

And this comes back to the question that I keep asking; why does it matter? You clearly think it does matter, and you have expressed surprise at my asking the question. But there's clearly a large body of Americans for whom it doesn't seem to matter - they ascribe value and meaning to the scriptures, without needing to believe them to be necessarily historically accurate - so your perception that it matters is evidently not universally shared.

Ironically, your perception is shared by fundamentalist biblical literalists, who insist that the only valid way to read the scriptures is as reliable historical narrative. If you share that perception you're in slightly surprising intellectual company, no?

I think if the people who believe this stuff were benign, easy going folk, then it wouldn't matter. But they are not. They threaten us all for suggesting that these tracts may not be true.

Leroy42

Did you even open the link?

The very 1st line

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) now believe the Bible is "the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word,"

You asked me to show you evidence that people believe the story, I showed it to you. You then went off on some tangent that not every christian or Jew believes every word, a claim that I never made.

It matters as it goes to the very heart of the belief. Belief stems from the bible. It cannot come from anywhere else. You might have gotten your belief from your parents, teachers, priest etc, but they got it from the bible. It is the only source they have. If you don't believe the bible then why would you believe?

So what we have is a book that is claimed to tell us the real word of God. Except that it is filled with parts that many people don't believe. Now, having some parts of a story shown to be made up does not in itself prove that other parts are, but it certainly raises the possibility and should, and would in any other sphere, call in question the other parts.

So what evidence do we have for the key bits? The virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection. Non, except for the bible itself, which we already know has parts in it that are made up. How can one make an informed decision why something is made up or not?

On what basis do you not accept the story of the slaughter? It is in the book afterall.

Does it matter what people believe, well as Safehands has pointed out, not usually.

But people use the bible as the basis for all kinds of stuff. Discrimination in school admittance policy. Legality of gay sex. Divorce and remarry. Heck, only in 2018 has Ireland accepted that there is simply no reason why alcohol shouldn't be sold on Good Friday. You know why we had that law? The church.

Why are women allowed to be discriminated against in the church (not allowed to be a priest which runs against every equality legislation we have), well because the church is somehow special. Why, they have the bible.

And you are trying to make the assertion that it really makes no difference why they believe what they believe?

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Did you even open the link?

The very 1st line



You asked me to show you evidence that people believe the story, I showed it to you. You then went off on some tangent that no every christian or Jew believes every word, a claim that I never made.

OK, you got me.

For the record, I did open the link. But I looked at the headline (“Record Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God”) and the highlighted statement of the statistic (“Americans who believ Bible is the literal word of God: 24%”) and the story highlights (“24% believe Bible is literal word of God, the lowest in Gallup's 40-year trend”) and took it that the rest of the page would be to the same effect.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It matters as it goes to the very heart of the belief. Belief stems from the bible. It cannot come from anywhere else . . .

Nope. Where do you imagine the bible texts came from? They didn’t grow on trees, and I assume you don’t imagine they were handed down on tablets of stone from God.

Beliefs come from people, Leroy. Paper, papyrus, parchment or whatever can’t believe things; only people can. The bible isn’t the source of Christian/Jewish beliefs. It’s a record of beliefs, a mode of transmitting beliefs, etc, etc. But it’s absolutely not the source of beliefs. The bible texts were produced by individuals and communities who already believed.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what we have is a book, that is claimed to tell us the real word of God. Except that it is filled with parts that many people don't believe . . .

No. It’s filled with parts which many people don’t believe to be historically accurate narrative, but nevertheless do believe to be inspired by God. In fact, as the Gallup poll that you yourself produced, this is the dominant belief (in America, at any rate).

Leroy42 wrote: »

Now, having some parts of a story shown of made up does not in itself prove that other parts are, but it certainly raises the possibility and should, and would in any other sphere, call in question the other parts.

All] of the bible texts are made up, Leroy. Again, did you think they grew on trees? All texts are made up by someone; that’s how texts come into being.

So, does the fact that all of the bible texts are made up, and some of them are not historically accurate narratives, call into question the others? Not particularly, no. If you get a bunch of disparate texts and, centuries after they were written, collect them all as “the bible”, how can that magically change the nature of each of the texts? Text A either is or is not accurate history, but that won’t be changed at all, in the smallest degree, by the decision of a later editor to publish it between the same covers as Text B. How would that even work?

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what evidence do we have for the key bits? The virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection. No, except for the bible itself, which we already know has parts in it that are made up. How can one make an informed decision why something is made up or not?

Like I say, you’re asking the wrong question. All of the texts in the bible are made up. This tells us nothing about whether they are true or not. Some of the texts in the bible are true. This tells us nothing about whether the rest are true or not. Some of the texts in the bible are not true. This tells us nothing about whether the others are true or not. If you are interested in the literal truth of the texts (and I’m still waiting for an explanation as to why this must always matter) I’m afraid there’s no short cut; you’re going to have to read the texts and evaluate them on their own terms.

Leroy42 wrote: »

On what basis do you not accept the story of the slaughter? It is in the book afterall.

It’s not sufficiently evidenced, and its role and significance in the larger text of which it is a part - the Gospel of Matthew - doesn’t seem to me to depend on whether it’s true or not. So I conclude that it’s probably a literary construction.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nope. Where do you imagine the bible texts came from? They didn’t grow on trees, and I assume you don’t imagine they were handed down on tablets of stone from God.

OK, I don't know if you are being deliberately semantic or maybe I am missing something. So because someone believes something, and writes it down, that to you is sufficient to give that belief credibility.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Beliefs come from people, Leroy. Paper, papyrus, parchment or whatever can’t believe things; only people can. The bible isn’t the source of Christian/Jewish beliefs. It’s a record of beliefs, a mode of transmitting beliefs, etc, etc. But it’s absolutely not the source of beliefs. The bible texts were produced by individuals and communities who already believed.

This is starting to sound a bit like an argument about the start of the universe. Who believed it first. Why does it matter? Is Ron Hubbard devine. He believes is, even wrote a book about it. What about David Icke. Or Jim Jones? Whilst it may not have been the original source, it is clearly the source now. How else does any christian believe? We aren't born believing (otherwise why would the whole world not be christian), we are informed of these belief's by our parents etc. And based on what? The bible. There is no one alive that has any direct experience of what may or may not have happened 2000+ years ago, the only thing they have os the bible. It is quite literally the very cornerstone of the faith. Without the bible, the faith would be just a lot of people with a bunch of stories.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. It’s filled with parts which many people don’t believe to be historically accurate narrative, but nevertheless do believe to be inspired by God. In fact, as the Gallup poll that you yourself produced, this is the dominant belief (in America, at any rate).

I totally accept that many people do not take every word to be true, that every thing happened the way it is stated. And in many cases, that does not change the fundamental narrative of the book. That God is the creator, that Jesus gave his life to save us, and that we must commit ourselves to Jesus to enter the kingdom of heaven.

But since there is no evidence to back up the claims of the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection, save for the bible, then we must consider whether we can rely on the bible as the source. When we can show that other parts of the bible are not accurate then we need consider that other parts may be inaccurate.

If, for example, the resurrection is nothing more than a metaphor that the disciples felt reborn on the quest to spread the word, and so Jesus never resurrected, doesn't that change how the world would see Jesus?

Professor Moriarty

I'm still wondering which parts of the Bible are metaphors? Which are stories? Which are facts and events? Who gets to decide and why?

pauldla

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm still wondering which parts of the Bible are metaphors? Which are stories? Which are facts and events? Who gets to decide and why?

Do you know the bits with the people walking on water and the talking donkey and the dead rising and appearing to many and all that kind of carry on? They're probably made-up.

And the bits of history like the Jews being slaves in Egypt and Herod killing all the kids and Caesar holding a census so everybody have to go back to the hometown of a remote ancestor from 1000 years before? They're probably made up too.

etc etc

Safehands

pauldla wrote: »

Do you know the bits with the people walking on water and the talking donkey and the dead rising and appearing to many and all that kind of carry on? They're probably made-up.

And the bits of history like the Jews being slaves in Egypt and Herod killing all the kids and Caesar holding a census so everybody have to go back to the hometown of a remote ancestor from 1000 years before? They're probably made up too.

etc etc

Yes and the burning bush that talked?
Made up,
Noah and the lions, kangaroos and Polar bears all living on a big boat? Take a wild guess, true? I don't think so.
We can keep going, it's not that hard really. Have go yourself Professor Moriarty.