The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by hazel Actually that's a pretty good description of the process that God used to give us our bible. But critical engagement with the text is one thing; rejecting a large tranche of scripture such as Paul's letters simply because you do not like their theology is quite another. That seems to me more like a deliberate closing of the mind. Saying "Oh, that bit's not the word of God" is simply too easy.

I do understand and agree that the pitfall of wholesale denial and point-by-point prejudice is a distinct possibility even when employing careful critical thinking. That seems to me to be an implied responsibility always present in weighing odds of even one person's assertions, that we need be cognizant of that possibility and do our best to avoid such pitfalls because each case, each element must be weighed on it's own merits to arrive at a reasonable total. This is exactly why I choose to rely on objective evidence.

Business_kid's analogy of eye-witness accounts of a murder only hold water if all agree it was the exact same perpetrator. As soon as there is basic discrepancy, a Court must ensue and corroborating evidence, not just hearsay or accusations, must determine which account is actually accurate and reliable.

We cannot rely on Deus ex machina to adjudicate murder cases or the historicity of Noah or Jericho, etc. since it has always been our responsibility to use our faculties as responsibly as we can possibly muster to sift through accounts to arrive somewhere close to Truth. Deus ex machina only exists in Fiction and makes no more sense IRL at avoiding responsibility than "The Devil made me do it".

Very good, but I cannot agree with your last paragraph. The Israelites were read the entire Law (Genesis - Deuteronomy) every few years at their festivals. It is only in the last few centuries that Bible criticism was practised at all. So for the vast majority of recorded time, the Bible was God's Word, creation happened, and Noah's Flood happened.

Try as I might, I cannot cobble together anything scriptural which indicates "Actually, a good portion of this book is bull. But it's up to you to work out which bits, because I'm not telling you." On the contrary, it has passages like Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, & Hebs 4:12, underlining the veracity of all of God's word.

The only previous critical work was in the early centuries AD in figuring out which books were scriptural and therefore benefical, and which were not. For example, we don't have Paul's very first letter to the Corinthians. The Bible's '1 Corinthians' was actually Paul's second letter to them.

Business-kid have you considered that if you judged say "Das Kapital" in the same manner you would likely be an ardent Communist? This is exactly why the phrase "prove the book, by the book" exists as an expression of inherent fallacy doomed from the jump. There can be little or usually no objectivity with only one source.

Originally Posted by enorbet There can be little or usually no objectivity with only one source.

Normally true, but the Bible came from the Ultimate Authority on everything, who created the 7 day week, stars, and DNA. The Bible explains itself, but only to those who take the time, which is a lot, due to its well above average word count. "A typical novel has around 80,000 to 109,000 words....That is around 1/8th of the word count in the King James Bible, New International Version or New American Standard Version." https://wordcounter.io/blog/how-many...e-in-the-bible

Originally Posted by enorbet Business-kid have you considered that if you judged say "Das Kapital" in the same manner you would likely be an ardent Communist? This is exactly why the phrase "prove the book, by the book" exists as an expression of inherent fallacy doomed from the jump. There can be little or usually no objectivity with only one source.

Your 'one book' argument is somewhat fallacious when the Bible is actually 66 books written by some 40 Jewish individuals over ~1600 years. Many of these attributed quotations or referenced contemporaneous external sources. Yet together they inform on many aspects of one theme. This theme was stated in the beginning, pieced together throughout, and the final book describes it's accomplishment.

BTW, I was unaware atheists had more than a passing interest in the Bible. Does it intrigue you?

EDIT: This holds true unless of course, you accept the inspiration of the Bible by one God. In that case, the 'one book' analogy has a little more validity. But admitting God's existence has other complications for an atheist.

Originally Posted by business_kid There is also a significant point being missed here. If we believe in a powerful God who did significant things, it follows that he is big enough to look after himself. So if his word is mistranslated or not translated as it was for centuries, he can have that work done when he wants it done. Men risked their lives translating God's words into modern languages within a century of printing. If there were alterations made (which there were) he will see to it that enough information is there to isolate them and remove them, which all respectable translations do. Scholars can today say where a scriptural text is from by examining the variations it contains.

Who are we to say that he wanted a big easy to follow rule book... Perhaps he wanted a book convoluted enough that there could be as many interpretations as there are readers, so that we still have to choose rather than follow. Perhaps He wants the work of exposing Saul/Paul done today, and planted that interpretation in my mind to share here.

I don't say that Saul/Paul is imposter... only that he could be. I like the love poetry of 1 Cor 13. But I definitely sprinkle more salt on Paul's letters than on the 4 books that comprise the gospel.

Originally Posted by hazel The trouble with dismissing parts of the Bible that you don't agree with, while still accepting others, is that you will never learn anything that way. You have already edited your input so the output is predetermined.

I believe the reverse also holds true: the problem with agreeing with the entire Bible, is that you'll never learn anything that way--it becomes a static dogma. Internal coherence is important to my pov, and I think I learn more from resolving incoherence than letting it be.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Normally true, but the Bible came from the Ultimate Authority on everything, who created the 7 day week, stars, and DNA. The Bible explains itself, but only to those who take the time, which is a lot, due to its well above average word count. "A typical novel has around 80,000 to 109,000 words....That is around 1/8th of the word count in the King James Bible, New International Version or New American Standard Version." https://wordcounter.io/blog/how-many...e-in-the-bible

...and some enterprising ad men wrote such as "4 out of 5 doctors prefer Chesterfield cigarettes" back in the 50s. The "Ultimate Authority" authorship is not proven, merely a claim just like "4 out of 5 doctors". The quantity of words says nothing about their quality. So with just those two metrics alone we are right back to undocumented, unprovable, and unlikely, IOW Faith flying in the face of Reason.

Originally Posted by business_kid Your 'one book' argument is somewhat fallacious when the Bible is actually 66 books written by some 40 Jewish individuals over ~1600 years. Many of these attributed quotations or referenced contemporaneous external sources. Yet together they inform on many aspects of one theme. This theme was stated in the beginning, pieced together throughout, and the final book describes it's accomplishment. BTW, I was unaware atheists had more than a passing interest in the Bible. Does it intrigue you? EDIT: This holds true unless of course, you accept the inspiration of the Bible by one God. In that case, the 'one book' analogy has a little more validity. But admitting God's existence has other complications for an atheist.

Complications? That's certainly an understatement since it is literally antithesis. However the word "admitting" is exceptionally misused here, since it implies knowing a thing is so while in denial. I'd love for it to be so! There's just no evidence that it is and most certain is it makes no sense that relatively ignorant and superstitious people, even the best available scholars possible from 2000+ years ago got it right. To assume that people that had zero understanding of either Microcosm or Macrocosm nevertheless had deep and definitive understanding of a world outside our Universe is patently absurd.

Regarding your first paragraph, no amount of books by no amount of authors makes Magick, Phlogiston, UFOs as visiting aliens, or Firmament real. Claims are not evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Originally Posted by enorbet we are right back to undocumented, unprovable, and unlikely

Jesus' resurrection is documented. You simply choose to categorize the documentation as inadequate or worse, a last days scoffer of which the Bible warns. The testimonial documentation we have has 5 important attributes:

1. Expected
2. Early
3. Eyewitness
4. Embarrasing
5. Excruciating

Frank Turek explains these in his book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", and in his corollary lecture series available free via CTN Lifestyle (either OTA or satellite TV and/or Roku), https://crossexamined.org/tv-programs/ and probably Youtube too.

You are correct in noticing my mistake, mrmazda. I incorrectly used the word "undocumented" where I should have used "uncorroborated". I should have probably also added "independent" to that term as well. To be clear, Scientology, for example, is both documented and corroborated but solely by believers and advocates. In my view such "evidence" is insufficient and not really evidence at all, just agenda-driven hearsay.

Jumping headlong into this: (emphasis mine)

"rejecting a large tranche of scripture such as Paul's letters simply because you do not like their theology is quite another. That seems to me more like a deliberate closing of the mind. Saying "Oh, that bit's not the word of God" is simply too easy.

Intuitively, it seems to me that the true definition of "too easy" is to accept the words of "this Roman who styled himself 'a Pharisee'" as that of anything other than that of an imposter. His entire(!) historical position is full of "contradictions and absurdities." And yet, he has become the sole(!) source(??) of fully two-thirds of what is now known as "The New Testament," thereby of course declaring the rest of it to now be "Old."

Exactly who(?!) declared his writings to be "Scripture," and on what authority? If there are any "tablets" here, I guess that I must have missed it.

This man claimed to be "a Disciple(!)" based entirely on his own account of a magical encounter that apparently no one else witnessed. (It appears to some that there was some contemporary opposition to this idea.) He claimed to be "a Pharisee" when it was quite impossible that he actually was. One book portrays himself about to be "poured out as a drink offering" at the hand of the Jews, while another shows him asserting his rights as "a Roman Citizen" to completely pre-empt the attacks against him which were then being offered by the (thoroughly conquered ...) Jews, and him then being carried across the seas (at Government expense) to "appeal to Caesar" – as was every "Roman Citizen's" right – although the account ends before he actually gets there.

Also –*"the entire time-line" of 100% of this ... simply does not exist. The persons that are being referred to ... such as "Peter" and "Paul" ... did not live in the same periods of time and therefore could not have possibly encountered one another. (Ditto: "Jesus.")

If "this is your chosen religious foundation," then I have nothing to say against you. However, otherwise this is an extremely curious "religious tradition, among others," because it very clearly shows the effects of the deliberate superimposition of one (very "recent" ...) religious tradition upon another ("ancient") one, purposely leveraging the latter to justify the former. Precisely as an Emperor might desire to do.

I don't know where you got the idea that there is some kind of incompatibility between being a Roman citizen and being a Jew and a pharisee. That may have been the case under the early republic when Romans were simply people who were born and lived in Rome. It certainly was not the case under the principate. Roman citizenship was widely bestowed upon provincial citizens of all ethnicities for services to Rome and could even be purchased. Paul claimed to have been born a citizen so it must have been his father who did the service (or paid the bribe!).

And there is no evidence at all that Paul lived at a different historical period from Peter and Jesus.

And there is no evidence at all that Paul lived at a different historical period from Peter and Jesus.

And, most unfortunately, this is where we are all "looking through a glass, darkly." There is simply so(!) much of this story that cannot now be "conclusively known."

Hence, one of my favorite little topics – "The Quest for the Historical Jesus." Of all of the "monumental figures in religion," Jesus remains in very many ways a delightful enigma.

Originally Posted by hazel And there is no evidence at all that Paul lived at a different historical period from Peter and Jesus.

Very true. And in fact there is much evidence to the contrary. Luke's writings (Gospel completion & Acts) were apparently finished in 61/62 CE, during Paul's 1st imprisonment in Rome. Paul was under house arrest at that time. Luke'a account in Acts 27 has been commented on by historians who have declared it to be first hand. That means Luke also travelled on the journey. The book of Acts also has early chapters dealing with the ministry of Peter.

We also have surviving first and early second century documents detailing the gospels and indicating their time of writing. Sundialsvcs is welcome to perch on the fence and indeed is always reluctant to leave it. But there are no facts on the fence with him. Perhaps the Witnesses are the only ones with respect enough for God's Word to research it thoroughly, but I doubt it. Many posters seem to think the answers can't be found, but they can.

Perhaps they have beenj listening to the wrong people. Anyone from the British Isles will have heard of Father Ted, perhaps the funniest sitcom ever. It hilariously savaged grovelling Irish Catholicism. I'm forming the impression there must be a lot more 'Father Ted' figures, or 'Father Dougal' figures, for that matter in other churches as well. Plenty of clips, episodes & series of the original Father Ted on youtube.

I guess I could put it
this way:

something made in the image of a creator is a creator as well

the classic epistemological problem of whatever criteria is chosen for knowledge in itself needs its own criteria and so on, is solved by infinite creativity.

we can always create new ways of interpreting the word/s of God contained in the Bible

The infinity of interpretations of life experiences, including the experiences of reading the Bible, frees one to create a custom interpretation: what else is an individual relationship with Christ?

Each person's spiritual interpretations are supposed to be custom... that's why the road is so narrow... its so narrow it dissipates into the game trails, overgrown with thickets, and each person hacks their own trail to heaven...

Heaven is like a mountaintop full of backpackers sharing stories of their ascent: no two trails were alike.