The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by enorbet The logical conclusion must be either God lied or scripture is not his/her/its literal word but simply the best guesses of ancient men.

Kind soul, perhaps you are now trying a little too hard to press your point ...

You call yourself a man of "science," yet where is "science" in this statement? In framing your statement, you very-tightly express it as an "either/or" choice. When there are in fact many other choices. And then you go further to refer to these documents in a way that might be taken as rather disparaging(!) of their authors – calling them "best guesses." Having made your point, you're now (IMHO) pressing it too hard.

It seems that on some level I have offended you, sundialsvcs, and I must say I do regret that. However I suspect exactly what I regret is different from what actually offended you. I regret that one problem with message boards where we have so little that humans need, like the physical cues we rely on so heavily in face-to-face meetings, that we don't "get a feel" for each other the way we do IRL. If you consider my POV, for example, the phrases that can be considered possibly blasphemous, "God lied" and "best guess", (I'm guessing since I can't know given my mindset how it appears for the very same reason in reverse)) since God, especially the ones described in any ancient scripture, doesn't exist, my POV is that God can not lie since there is none. From my POV then as well as from a Believer's POV, that is a tautology and cannot in any case be true, so the only remaining real possibility is that scripture is written by men and NOT the literal transcription of "God's Word", just because some superstitious men said so.

This completely aligns with the obvious fact that there are many thousands of very different interpretations since surely The All-Knowing, All-Powerful, Immortal Creator of Everything, could simply will scripture into existence in any manner he/she/it chose, perhaps even embedded directly in the psyche of every human ever so clearly, so unequivocally, so exactly that no man would nor could ever misinterpret words of such grave importance. It simply makes no sense that a Divinity, especially one that so strongly desires to be worshipped by humans, and to whom He has given quite literally the most important choice that could ever be, one of eternal consequence, would allow that message to be misunderstood let alone misinterpreted, and in so many cases interpreted in ways that have been used by men to justify real evil.

On top of that is the hubris required by humans, absent such clear and present information, to imagine that their interpretation is the Only correct one, that they can even possibly comprehend the slightest bit of the Mind of God.

I am honestly not trying to offend. I am just trying to make it clear why I am an atheist, why I see scripture, ALL scripture, as beautiful poetic allegory of the "best guesses" (a term often used here to somewhat accurately also describe Science, or worse dismiss it's achievements as having little or even zero value or worse, willful deception, with zero concern for how such concepts might offend others).

In truth, I am not offended but I do feel the need to point out the discrepancy and the lack of tolerance and humility. In fact, one of the precepts of the scientific method is that the Universe is under no obligation to make sense to a person, so no offense is really even possible, with the only possible exception being to misguided human individuals who imagine they or we, can know it all, that anything is more solid than a probability, a "best guess". "Best guess" is not a pejorative in my vocabulary, quite the opposite, as it is the best humans can hope for and hopefully the result of rigorous research and consideration of what little a man can observe in what is substantially less by an order of magnitude than even a mere 1000 years.

Originally Posted by enorbet It simply makes no sense that a Divinity, especially one that so strongly desires to be worshipped by humans, and to whom He has given quite literally the most important choice that could ever be, one of eternal consequence, would allow that message to be misunderstood let alone misinterpreted, and in so many cases interpreted in ways that have been used by men to justify real evil.

Now there you make an assumption so basic that you are not even aware you are making it. I don't blame you because a lot of Christians (including our good friend Business Kid) make it too. The assumption is that the Bible was given to us (whether by God or by man) as some kind of theological textbook or user manual. Now of course if it were that, it would be imperative that it be clearly and unambiguously written, so that people would not make mistakes in interpreting it. But it is very clear that the Bible is not that kind of book at all. That might well be the kind of book that you or I would have written to do the job, but God may have quite different ideas. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are My ways your ways."

I don't believe that God is terribly interested in giving us abstract information about Himself. What He wants is to have a personal relationship with us, one based on trust. And trust is not harmed by uncertainty; it actually requires it. When I read and study the Bible, I do so in the faith that God will not allow me to make the kind of mistakes in interpreting it that would lead to harm to myself or others. But other kinds of mistakes and misinterpretations that might lead to diversions on my path might well be for my ultimate benefit. Who am I to say that this cannot be so?

If the Bible were the kind of book that you would like it to be, then everyone would agree on the meaning of every passage. And that would mean that there would be no conceivable difference between the experience of following the Bible and that of following the mob. How would I ever have the experience of putting my trust in God's Word, as interpreted by me with the help of the Holy Spirit, if it never required me to reject someone else's interpretation?

We have to make do with the Bible we have, not the one that we think God ought to have written.

I don't use the Bible literally 100% of the time, although I certainly do limit myself to that on this forum, because other passages which cannot be taken literally will do nothing except sidetrack the debate into the exact meaning of them.

The Bible contains songs; poetry; illustrations (some quite complicated); slang or idioms of the day; parables, some of which are open to literal interpretation, others which cannot be so taken. Some meanings are lost without background knowledge. And God doesn't stop people getting it wrong. Understanding has to be prayerfully searched for Proverbs 2:1-9

One thing I'm surprised nobody came up with is the principle: "Let Scripture interpret Scripture." Also, as regards how verses should be taken, you can read how the religious leaders contended with Jesus as they went around the country making trouble for him. You can also learn from how he answered them. But beware of the difference between tradition and scripture.

Originally Posted by enorbet I just only pay serious attention to the multitudes of modern experts with actual evidence, not hearsay that doesn't "hold water" against the most basic of tests.

The Bible speaks several times of "willing ignorance". "...[T]here shall come in the last days scoffers...." (2 Peter 3) usually comes to mind hearing or seeing these words from atheists. Actual evidence of times long past is scarce. What little there is is subject to various interpretations based upon world view.

https://lindasbiblestudy.wordpress.c...ngly-ignorant/ was the first hit using search terms "bible willing ignorance" on Google moments ago. Short read.

There was multitudes of experts with "Actual Evidence" for eugenics too....

Originally Posted by hazel ... I don't believe that God is terribly interested in giving us abstract information about Himself. What He wants is to have a personal relationship with us, one based on trust. And trust is not harmed by uncertainty; it actually requires it.

I concur. Trust is essential to good morale and health. Trusting God helps us trust each other. Blind trust is foolhardy. But we have a general trust of the good in the public, or we wouldn't even be able to purchase fruit at the grocers, fruiters, or farmers markets, out of fear that a prior shopper from the public might have sprayed it with poison.

Anything that harms our collective trust lowers morale, damages health, and overall decreases our quality of life. The reverse is likewise true, that whatever can increase our collective trust improves our overall quality of life.

In my life of trust, I have been burgled: from my home, from my car, and even bodily. However, these incidents average to only once every six years. Despite all of them, I still have an open door policy, without locks. (I lose keys anyways, so prefer to just get rid of the locks). My vehicles are operated without keys, and I don't ever lock my doors in town. The reason being is that if I lost my trust, then the burglars would have stolen something much much more valuable.

Without a relationship with our infinite self, I think I would have lost this trust by now.

Originally Posted by business_kid ... He wasn't sacrificed - he was a volunteer.

Well said.

Originally Posted by business_kid He paid a ransom price to redeem all humanity willing to accept it.

I think he redeemed himself by volunteering, showing us the way: love everyone, even if they kill you for it. IMHO, the ransom price he paid was for himself, not everyone willing to accept it. If all I have to do is accept that my ransom is already paid, then I don't have to volunteer... then I am free to stay mediocre... I think this "ransom price" concept was injected into the scripture by Saul/Paul, who I have suspect was serving the wrong agenda: because of this concept, christians are watching the superbowl on sunday when they could be out there risking the martydom that unconditional love attracts. Because of this notion that Jesus did the hard part for us, we don't volunteer ourselves. This one concept has wiped out God's volunteer workforce.

Originally Posted by business_kid There was multitudes of experts with "Actual Evidence" for eugenics too....

C'mon business_kid. I'm betting you know the difference between actual experts and self-proclaimed experts, or worse, those enslaved by political authority.

Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box Well said. I think he redeemed himself by volunteering, showing us the way: love everyone, even if they kill you for it. IMHO, the ransom price he paid was for himself, not everyone willing to accept it. If all I have to do is accept that my ransom is already paid, then I don't have to volunteer... then I am free to stay mediocre... I think this "ransom price" concept was injected into the scripture by Saul/Paul, who I have suspect was serving the wrong agenda: because of this concept, christians are watching the superbowl on sunday when they could be out there risking the martydom that unconditional love attracts. Because of this notion that Jesus did the hard part for us, we don't volunteer ourselves. This one concept has wiped out God's volunteer workforce.

Oh dear, I had unsubscribed I thought, but somehow found myself involved here.

To say 'Christ redemmed himself' means that somehow the only direct Creation by God (Col 1:15-16)somehow needed redeeming. That theory blows up in your face for many reasons, and I'm sure you'll have many others point that out.

No, simply accepting the ransom doesn't let you off the hook. Sorry if I gave that impression. That was the end of a long enough post and I was trying not to bore people.

Our translation for one uses the term "exercise faith" at John 3:16 and other places in an attempt to describe the Greek and we have an extensive study note with quotes from respected Commentaries on why. You can have legs without exercising them. Not faith. Exercising faith in Jesus is the opposite of disobeying Jesus. The last command Jesus gave to his diciples is at Matthew 28:19-20. Jehovah's Witnesses Worldwide number 8-9 million, but we spent over 2 Billion hours preaching to and teaching others last year. Everyone gets involved. Despite being disabled, I am involved in our preaching work. That's exercising faith in Jesus!

Originally Posted by enorbet C'mon business_kid. I'm betting you know the difference between actual experts and self-proclaimed experts, or worse, those enslaved by political authority.

With my tongue out of my cheek, I do. Nevertheless Hitler's Mein Kampf (not that I ever read it) was in line with the "Scientific Facts" of the day. It should humble scientists. After marriage bans, forcible castration, etc. all of which was leglisated for, Genocide was just one step further. Wikipedia seems good on it.

I have read "Mein Kampf" as well as "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and "The Origin of Species" and No, Eugenics was not inline with the scientific facts of the day. Survival of the Fittest was misunderstood and even perverted by many with an "axe to grind" usually making the assumption that "fit" equaled strength and ruthless brutality. That is not even close to the precepts in Darwin. It should be obvious that if that were true our world would be dominated by such as T Rex and other vicious monsters from the deep past.

However that's just at the simpler stages of what The Theory of Evolution explains. I do agree that such bad interpretations should humble scientists but even more should inform Science of the dangers of "Ivory Towers", of distancing real Science from general knowledge and especially, political authority. In many ways the rise of the Third Reich was far more based in mysticism, as an extension or modernization of "The Divine Right of Kings".

Here is a somewhat famous bit of poetry for you to consider on the issue

Originally Posted by Alexander Pope A little learning is a dang’rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again. Fir’d at first sight with what the Muse imparts, In fearless youth we tempt the heights of arts, While from the bounded level of our mind, Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind, But more advanc’d, behold with strange surprise New, distant scenes of endless science rise!

Originally Posted by enorbet Eugenics was not inline with the scientific facts of the day. Survival of the Fittest was misunderstood and even perverted by many with an "axe to grind" usually making the assumption that "fit" equaled strength and ruthless brutality. That is not even close to the precepts in Darwin.

Apparently Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest" because he feared the use to which it could be (and was) put. I believe it was invented by Herbert Spencer. It was very convenient for rich Victorians to believe that they were "fitter" and therefore entitled to be rich, while the poor were unfit and should be allowed to starve as quickly as possible.

That was probably part of the reason why poor Americans all rejected evolution. They too often heard it being quoted against them.

Thank you, hazel, for bringing that up. Darwin does imply "fittest" but his definition of that term is broad and scientific since it is quite common that the largest and strongest go extinct under changing environmental conditions. The ruling class doesn't want to entertain such a notion, preferring instead self-aggrandizement and justification for that whole "Divine Right" concept. Really that view is just the modern version of "Bloodlines" from time immemorial.

However I am quite unsure there is any reason to single out poor Americans as rejecting Evolution off hand in defense against the assaults of the elite.
John T. Scopes, the Tennessee high school teacher made famous in the Scopes aka "Monkey" Trial was born to a farmer family from Kentucky. He may not have qualified as "dirt poor" but was decidedly of the "hoi paloi" and not even bourgeois, let alone elite and entitled.

Personally I think it is a huge and counterproductive mistake for some fundamentalists to insist on literal translation of scripture (if that is even actually possible) including and especially Evolution. To me it seems like a "death wish" to choose such an indefensible hill to die on, only slightly less defensible than Young, Flat Earth. It can be argued that it is early enough that details deserve argument but it is certainly late enough that the basics are "in the bag". Everything evolves. Nothing we know of stays exactly the same. In fact and in human terms, that evolution is accelerating and that acceleration began with the invention of written language.

Originally Posted by enorbet Everything evolves

Nothing in the natural world evolves - it devolves. The gene pool looses information in the process of remixing whatever has remained. Entropy is natural law.