Liberal Religionists: Enablers of Fundies?

[fatpie42]

So we have, in fact, two different understandings of what scripture is. And perhaps that is why the atheist will never be satisfied with Christians' answers, because the bible can't be made to lay down and play dead for scientific reasoning as they wish.

Don't forget that I'm an atheist. I recognise that interpretations are fluid, but I just don't think there is an interpretation of Christianity which makes it very compelling.

I think the thing is that many atheists aren't terribly interested in Christianity if it is isn't announcing the existence of an all-powerful being who intervenes every minute granting the wishes of his followers and smiting his enemies. I think some Christians are convinced that this is the God they worship too....

[fatpie42]

Aesop's fables are fictional, therefore "don't cry wolf" is false?

Guy Fawkes is a story in which we are uncertain on many of the details. The moral is a warning against treachery against the king. Is it false?


"It is not literally true, but as a metaphor it is true" is an utterly weasily, nonsensical concept. What's wrong with just saying plain-spokenly, "It is false, but I think it was not intended to be believed as true because I think it was intended as fiction."? I's a much more honest way to express the idea, that is not open to feeding fuel to the fundies.

I think the phrase "it is a metaphor" is misleading. It's more, some parts are historical or based on history, other parts are symbolic. Often it is a mixture of the two. Obviously some of the symbolism will involve metaphor, but that doesn't mean the crucifixion IS a metaphor and nothing but.

I don't have any problem imagining someone crucified. It doesn't go against my reason. I also recognise that the idea that Jesus' crucifixion was victory in death and the corresponding imagery of it providing eternal life (the idea of victory providing immortality is a very Greek idea), as a very powerful metaphor.

I'm not sure I understand your criteria here.

[fatpie42]

utter bullshite (a word I learned from atheists), all of it.


You don't believe that deconversion is possible then?

[fatpie42]

And he can't believe in christ without the holy spirit moving him to. How convenient. Many of us prayed our little hearts out and got nothing. So the prayer is a long shot.

-Ubercat

Angela probably doesn't believe you prayed enough.... meh!

[benjdm]

That's amazing. How could you consider yourself a christian, without having the vaguest idea or even much thought on what, if anything the christian god has ever done since the creation?
Chris‧tian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian)

–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

Only half of one definition - 'adherent of christianity' could really be construed to mean that the person has certain beliefs about God interacting with the natural universe. 8 and 9 do not imply that at all. Definitions 1-7 were of the adjective Christian.
That's like me calling myself a vegetarian, without even knowing what one WAS. How would I know to avoid meat, if I didn't know that was the point of being a vegetarian?
veg‧e‧tar‧i‧an (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegetarian)

noun
1. a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.

Huh ?

[Ubercat]

Chris‧tian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian)

–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

Only half of one definition - 'adherent of christianity' could really be construed to mean that the person has certain beliefs about God interacting with the natural universe. 8 and 9 do not imply that at all. Definitions 1-7 were of the adjective Christian.

veg‧e‧tar‧i‧an (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegetarian)

noun
1. a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.

Huh ?

wbDawn doesn't have the vaguest idea of what biblegod does, did, or didn't do, yet chooses to call herself a christian. It's equivalent to someone claiming vegetarianism with no knowlege of it. Is that a difficult jump to make?

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

Angela probably doesn't believe you prayed enough.... meh!

Of course not. And if I spent 20 years sitting in the pumpkin patch, waiting for the great pumpkin, and finally gave up, I wouldn't have tried THAT for long enough either, right? Tsk...christians! :rolling:

-Ubercat

[benjdm]

wbDawn doesn't have the vaguest idea of what biblegod does, did, or didn't do, yet chooses to call herself a christian. It's equivalent to someone claiming vegetarianism with no knowlege of it. Is that a difficult jump to make?

-Ubercat
Yes, it is an impossible jump to make, because the word Christian is less specific than you seem to think it is. If you wish to use a definition other than the common usage one given by the dictionary above, please provide it, and then ask WD if she is an 'Ubercat Christian' or not. Otherwise we're not speaking the same language. Don't go pulling stealth redefinitions like you're trying to explain the trinity or something.

[WishboneDawn]

[I]
That's amazing. How could you consider yourself a christian, without having the vaguest idea or even much thought on what, if anything the christian god has ever done since the creation?

That's like me calling myself a vegetarian, without even knowing what one WAS. How would I know to avoid meat, if I didn't know that was the point of being a vegetarian?

-Ubercat

I've been a pretty secular believer most of my life, only really engaging with christianity in the last few years.

Strangely enough (and thankfully) they don't ram a memory card up your ass the moment you start attending church with all the information they think you should know. As with any endeavour or pursuit or belief, it's a process where you learn as you go. Give me some time and at some point I'll have an answer for you.

[angela2]

And he can't believe in christ without the holy spirit moving him to. How convenient. Many of us prayed our little hearts out and got nothing. So the prayer is a long shot.

-Ubercat
Uber,

Puzzle me this. If the Holy Spirit converts people, and the Holy Spirit never made itself manifest to unbelievers, how would anyone be converted?

[angela2]

Of course not. And if I spent 20 years sitting in the pumpkin patch, waiting for the great pumpkin, and finally gave up, I wouldn't have tried THAT for long enough either, right? Tsk...christians! :rolling:

-Ubercat
That's what happens when you believe in the Great Pumpkin. :rolling:

[seebs]

Reading between the lines, I get the impression that you have the following statement as a premise: "Things which are intended to be interpreted as fictional metaphors cannot be called false".

Er, no.

I merely have the premise: "If a statement is metaphorical, its truth or falsehood depends on the truth of the meaning, not the truth of a literal misinterpretation."

I do not agree. A false story that is INTENDED to be understood as false (i.e. a work of fiction) is still false.

Fiction and metaphor are not the same thing, you know. They are in fact rather different.

I sort of get it, though. So, for instance, your response to the story of "the boy who cried wolf" is simply that it's false, and that the entire question of what it means is irrelevant, because it's false.

It's just not *deceptively* false if the author intended the reader to see that it isn't really a true story. If you think there's some wonderful metaphors in the bible, you don't have to claim they are true in order to say so.

But "wonderful" metaphors is a judgement of artistic merit.

I'm saying that the things expressed in this poetic language are true, even if a literal misinterpretation of the poetic language isn't.

If someone says "The sun rises and sets in my lover's eyes", I am going to base my evaluation of his accuracy on other evidence of how he feels about his lover, not on astronomy.

To use an example, if someone says "I think there are wonderful metaphors in the play 'A Christmas Carol', and their message is good", they aren't saying "I think 'A Christmas Carol' is true".

They might not phrase it that way, but it's closer to their position than "I think 'A Christmas Carol' is false" is.

Take a fable for example. You don't have to claim the story of the tortise and the hare is true in order to claim it has a good message. Calling it fictional because you don't believe a story about talking animals was meant to be believed doesn't detract from that fact that you might like the message.

Yes, it does, because the story never made any claims about talking animals. You just misunderstood it if you thought it did.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept a standard of language that requires me to pretend the inability to think past, or even up to, the level of literary analysis normally expected of kindergarteners.

Your constant insistence (and that of so many other moderate Christains) that when part of the bible is found to not be literally true, that the only proper way to express that is to call it metaphorically true (a nonsense concept), and never just call it false, is, to get back to the subject at hand, is a practice that enables fundies.

If that were the actual practice, I might think it sort of enabled fundies.

But frankly, I'm a lot more worried about people who spend weeks hammering on the frankly incoherent notion that "truth" always applies exclusively to the most literal and ham-handed reading of a text possible. That is what really drives fundamentalism; the belief that the text has to be literal to be true.

You claim I'm enabling fundies when I attack the founding presupposition that makes fundamentalism, but you're lauding it and upholding it as the only rational standard.

Despite that, in fact, you've rather missed the point of all these arguments about the evidence available of allegorical interpretation. Many of these things have been believed to be allegory, by many Christians, all along. This isn't some elaborate attempt to pretend that everything in the Bible is true; this is an actual attempt to understand the point of a text.

The concept that intellectual honesty could include something other than willful misinterpretation to provide strawmen may seem foreign at first, but I assure you that there is precedent. I have seen many people argue whether Plato's dialogues are good or bad, but in no case have I seen anyone argue that, since the dialogues are obviously scripted, they are "false".

"It is not literally true, but as a metaphor it is true" is an utterly weasily, nonsensical concept.

I see. So, basically, you're saying literature is dumb, and poetry never happened.

What's wrong with just saying plain-spokenly, "It is false, but I think it was not intended to be believed as true because I think it was intended as fiction."?

Well, the obvious thing wrong with it is that it's utterly stupid. Kindergarteners can distinguish between metaphor and falsehood.

More importantly, it loses a key distinction; the distinction between pure fiction and fables. Fables are making a real assertion, and that they use fiction to illustrate it doesn't make that assertion false. When you dismiss it as "false, because it was intended to be fiction", you reject the actual point of the text.

If you were merely stressing that the literal interpretation of the story is false, while granting that there may be a significant or important message communicated through metaphor or allegory, it would merely seem pointlessly obsessive. When you cross over to denying that the actual point of a piece of writing can be true unless the expression was completely literal, though, you've gone into la-la land.

I's a much more honest way to express the idea, that is not open to feeding fuel to the fundies.

Except that the only people feeding the fundies are the ones saying "ONLY LITERAL THINGS ARE TRUE" "IF IT IS NOT LITERAL IT IS FALSE".

Seriously, not one word in your argumentation would be out of place in a fundamentalist pulpit. Your entire argument is precisely what they want to make themselves out to be the "true" Christians, and it depends on exactly what their argument depends on -- active opposition to the notion that any writers in thousands of years of study of these texts had any idea what they were talking about, or that the authors of the texts were competent to talk about what they meant.

I think you have convinced me of something, though: Modern fundamentalism is essentially a naive empiricist's view of Christianity.

[WishboneDawn]

wbDawn doesn't have the vaguest idea of what biblegod does, did, or didn't do, yet chooses to call herself a christian. It's equivalent to someone claiming vegetarianism with no knowlege of it. Is that a difficult jump to make?

-Ubercat

The question was about what god did since creation, not what god ever did. Admiting I don't feel qualified to answer the question yet isn't admitting I haven't the 'vaguest idea'. I probably phrased that wrong and gave you the wrong impression.

So, I don't know what to say in answer to Merzbow's question at this point. I do have ideas and feelings and such but at this point I haven't sat and turned it over in my mind. I think having half-baked thoughts and having an answer are two different matters.

[WishboneDawn]

Yes, it is an impossible jump to make, because the word Christian is less specific than you seem to think it is. If you wish to use a definition other than the common usage one given by the dictionary above, please provide it, and then ask WD if she is an 'Ubercat Christian' or not. Otherwise we're not speaking the same language. Don't go pulling stealth redefinitions like you're trying to explain the trinity or something.

Thanks Benjdm. :)

[Biff the unclean]

Since you want no part of the Holy Spirit, how would you know?
……………
Unless you believe in Jesus Christ, you are unlikely to have an experience of the Holy Spirit. However, if you pray you might. So how about it?
……………….
If the Holy Spirit converts people, and the Holy Spirit never made itself manifest to unbelievers, how would anyone be converted?

And so the “liberal” enables the “fundy”
It really looks, Angela, that you do not think before you type. This bullshite is laughable (by the bye I spell/pronounce it shite because I have the honor of being from Ireland. Cork to be more exact)

I want no part of WHAT Holy Spirit? You’ve never presented any spirits, holy or otherwise.

If I don’t believe then it goes away? There is only one class of thing that this is an attribute of. Imaginary things. Is the Holy Ghost related to Tinkerbell? Must the audience declare belief or her little spot light fades out?

And you wrap up with the holy spirit converts unbelievers which is a direct contradiction of your first two statements.
If you are going to make this shite up as you go along…and you are obviously making it up…please be good enough to keep tract of all the ridiculous things you are claiming. Put a little effort into it for christ's sake.

[Biff the unclean]

Thanks Benjdm. :)

You are thanking him for saying that it is close to meaningless when a person says they are a Christian. Shouldn’t that make you angry instead?

[Ubercat]

Yes, it is an impossible jump to make, because the word Christian is less specific than you seem to think it is. If you wish to use a definition other than the common usage one given by the dictionary above, please provide it, and then ask WD if she is an 'Ubercat Christian' or not. Otherwise we're not speaking the same language. Don't go pulling stealth redefinitions like you're trying to explain the trinity or something.

Okeedoke. Sorry to have offended you.

-Ubercat

[Merzbow42]

Unless you believe in Jesus Christ, you are unlikely to have an experience of the Holy Spirit. However, if you pray you might. So how about it?

A tautology. You're saying I must already be ready to accept lowered standards of evidence to believe. I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that images and feelings that appear only in my mind, invisible to everyone else, somehow say something meaningful about cosmology. People take LSD and see purple elephants. Does that mean purple elephants created the universe? People in a religious frenzy also occasionally convince each other that they all saw a miracle occur (such as early Mormons who though they saw Brigham Young's face interposed with Joseph Smith's face after Smith's death during a speech by Young, which supposedly meant Young should be the new prophet).

The problem with accepting these type of experiences as a class as having validity is that you give up the right to criticize the validity of anyone else's religious experiences. What gives you the right to claim these Mormons were wrong, or that Hindus who see their guru perform miracles are wrong, or Muslims who feel Allah's will are wrong?

[Biff the unclean]

The question was about what god did since creation, not what god ever did.
Is the creation story in the bible literal or not literal?
If it is not literal then why would you say God was the creator? What source (since we would be discarding Genesis as not being literal) would make you think God created anything?

[Ubercat]

Uber,

Puzzle me this. If the Holy Spirit converts people, and the Holy Spirit never made itself manifest to unbelievers, how would anyone be converted?

No one could be converted without the holy spirits intervention, per the fathers will. At least presuming that biblegod is real, and the relevant portions of the bible are correct. That's called predestination.

-Ubercat

[seebs]

Is the creation story in the bible literal or not literal?

Not-literal.

If it is not literal then why would you say God was the creator? What source (since we would be discarding Genesis as not being literal) would make you think God created anything?

See, you're doing it again. You're treating "not literal" as "false".

If it's "not literal", then we are asserting, not that it doesn't say anything, but that it says something other than what the naive literal reading would say.

That doesn't mean it has to disagree on every single implication or claim; only that the details presented are intended to communicate something else.

In short, the obvious answer would be "Genesis tells, using metaphor and analogy, about creation". We're still talking about "how God created the universe" -- we're just not insisting on the six days, or the exact order or details of events. Were we created from actual clay, like you find in river banks? No. Were we made in some way from existing material, that was given life? Yes.

I think the problem here is just that you seem very committed to trying to find the stupidest possible reading of the text. That kind of thing tends to get nowhere fast.

[EarlOfLade]

In short, the obvious answer would be "Genesis tells, using metaphor and analogy, about creation". We're still talking about "how God created the universe" -- we're just not insisting on the six days, or the exact order or details of events. Were we created from actual clay, like you find in river banks? No. Were we made in some way from existing material, that was given life? Yes.
So, basically you are saying that the big bang and evolution is false and that the bible is right, even though the stories are not to be taken literally, it just happened a bit differently than what the bible states?

[WishboneDawn]

You are thanking him for saying that it is close to meaningless when a person says they are a Christian. Shouldn’t that make you angry instead?

No, but I don't honestly think you believe that's what he meant either. I'd have to believe you couldn't see past your own biases to understand what someone is saying and I think you're a good deal more intelligent then that.

[seebs]

So, basically you are saying that the big bang and evolution is false and that the bible is right, even though the stories are not to be taken literally, it just happened a bit differently than what the bible states?

No, that's not what I'm saying. It's not even close.

Evolution happens. That's not a teleological claim. The Bible is making teleological claims, which are by nature not really in conflict with non-teleological claims.

[WishboneDawn]

So, basically you are saying that the big bang and evolution is false and that the bible is right, even though the stories are not to be taken literally, it just happened a bit differently than what the bible states?

Where did seebs claim there was no big bang? Where did he say he didn't find evolution plausible? Honestly, you don't honestly think that's what seebs was saying, do you??

[Merzbow42]

<Blasted dupe>

[Merzbow42]

Once again, I will make the point that by refusing to defend any of the Bible's particular claims as being something that cannot have been perceived by non-spiritual means, liberal Christians have left themselves without any impersonal method with which to defend the Bible's authority. All that remains is for them to tell us to pray and be given that special warm feeling.

And I would exhort the other atheists on this thread to stop getting trapped in discussions of literal/metaphoric because seebs is basically correct that there is no reason why a religious text couldn't express truths via both literal and metaphorical language. Instead, ask why the Christians believe there is ANY religious truth in the text at all.

[EarlOfLade]

No, that's not what I'm saying. It's not even close.

Evolution happens. That's not a teleological claim. The Bible is making teleological claims, which are by nature not really in conflict with non-teleological claims.

Ok, so you say evolution is reality and that we are descendant of of apes? But the bible says god created humans in his image. Are you saying that this is not correct? We are not created in gods image? So, you think christians who claim otherwise to lie? brainwashed? or what?

But, you did not answer the other question. Did god create the universe or was it the big bang? Science claim the universe started as a big bang, the bible says otherwise and you said you did not believe in the genesis story, but you still believe that god created the universe, just not in six days? Is that correct?

I see that you are not in line with most of christianity by claiming there is no conflict between whats written in the bible and what we observe in the nature. Are you a member of a particular church? What do you base your ideas about what the bible says and how to interpret it?

[seebs]

Once again, I will make the point that by refusing to defend any of the Bible's particular claims as being something that cannot have been perceived by non-spiritual means, liberal Christians have left themselves without any impersonal means with which to defend the Bible's authority. All that remains is for them to tell us to pray and be given that special warm feeling.

There are a number of holes in this argument.

1. I haven't refused to defend any of the claims, and indeed, the stuff people complain about as being obviously untrue is pretty much all in the OT, and 90% of it is in Genesis. The obvious exception is the miracle claims in the Gospels, but those are distinct in that they are not contrary to specific evidence, but only contrary to our usual experience; contrast this with the Flood, which is contrary to evidence we can examine now.
2. Even if large chunks of the Biblical account were proven to be factually true, it would change nothing; the world's full of books which contain some such claims, which no one grants particular authority to.
3. There are other ways to assert authority; for instance, one could argue that the perceived continuity of teaching in the Christian church about the authority of the Bible is evidence of a sort. It may not be persuasive to everyone, but it's not nothing.
4. What's wrong with personal means to defend truth claims? We all rely on them constantly anyway, and declaring them invalid for specific claims while accepting them the rest of the time is a much better example of cherry-picking than any of the incoherent attacks I've seen on liberal Christians.

In short, since my initial position was that I became convinced through personal experiences and discussion with other people about their experiences, I don't feel that being "forced" to admit that personal experiences are my best evidence is much of a loss.

I accept the Bible as a source because I'm Christian, not the other way around.

[seebs]

Ok, so you say evolution is reality and that we are descendant of of apes?

No, I say we are descendants of primates; I am under the impression that apes are more our cousins than our ancestors.

But the bible says god created humans in his image.

Yes, it does.

Are you saying that this is not correct?

No, I am not.

And if you'd paid any attention to any of the things I've said, this would not confuse you. I reject your false dichotomy.

But, you did not answer the other question. Did god create the universe or was it the big bang?

Hmm. You know, I think I'll reject this false dichotomy too.

"Did you heat that water, or was it the coffeemaker?"

Science claim the universe started as a big bang, the bible says otherwise and you said you did not believe in the genesis story, but you still believe that god created the universe, just not in six days? Is that correct?

It's probably as close as you can come if you're committed to the notion that the only two options are "accept the Genesis story as exactly literal, only maybe allowing some waffling on days" or "reject everything".

I see that you are not in line with most of christianity by claiming there is no conflict between whats written in the bible and what we observe in the nature.

No, you don't. You may believe this, but it's wrong; the solid majority of Christians have accepted evolution an an old earth for decades. You're mistaking "loud American nutjobs" for "a majority of Christians".

Are you a member of a particular church?

I regularly attend one; I've never done the formal membership process.

What do you base your ideas about what the bible says and how to interpret it?

There's a missing preposition here. Anyway, I do a fair amount of reading on the topic, and I look at the world, and I talk to people about their own experiences and beliefs.

Since I don't have the common Protestant notion that everything has to come from the Bible, I don't place nearly as much weight on the question as some people do.

[Biff the unclean]

See, you're doing it again. You're treating "not literal" as "false".
And I see that you are still projecting your fantasies of what people write instead of reading what they write.

If it's "not literal", then we are asserting, not that it doesn't say anything, but that it says something other than what the naive literal reading would say.

That doesn't mean it has to disagree on every single implication or claim; only that the details presented are intended to communicate something else.

How weaselly do you intend to get?
As you yourself noted when Jesus said “I am the door” it didn’t mean that he had hinges and a knob. It was a metaphor, a poetic figure of speech. Now you want to change that to it doesn’t mean he has big brass knobs only little stainless steel ones.


In short, the obvious answer would be "Genesis tells, using metaphor and analogy, about creation".
And part of that metaphor and analogy is that it was the doing of God.

We're still talking about "how God created the universe" -- we're just not insisting on the six days, or the exact order or details of events. Were we created from actual clay, like you find in river banks? No. Were we made in some way from existing material, that was given life? Yes.
Then we aren’t talking about how God created the universe. You jump back and forth. God creating the universe is literal…except it doesn’t say that God created the universe. It’s a story about God building a bizarre construct that doesn’t exist in the universe

I think the problem here is just that you seem very committed to trying to find the stupidest possible reading of the text. That kind of thing tends to get nowhere fast.
The problem is that your faith requires you to abandon honesty. The text is stupid, it is mind numbingly stupid. You realize that the text is stupid and want to recast it as a metaphor. People have been doing this for a long time because it has always been stupid.
And the biggest part of the utter stupidity of the story is the claim that a supernatural god is the instigator.
So we are back again at the question you cannot or will not answer. What criteria are you using that demonstrates the creation story to be non-literal and the creator in that story literal at the same time? What standard are you using? The only thing I see working here is your imagination. Why do you bother with the bible at all when your only source is your own imagination?:banghead:

[seebs]

And I would exhort the other atheists on this thread to stop getting trapped in discussions of literal/metaphoric because seebs is basically correct that there is no reason why a religious text couldn't express truths via both literal and metaphorical language. Instead, ask why the Christians believe there is ANY religious truth in the text at all.

That is a much much better question.

Speaking only for myself: I spent quite a long time trying to puzzle out moral and cosmological questions with the assumption that all these religious people were obviously wrong. I ended up reinventing a certain amount of what they had, and ended up roughly a Deist. Later experiences suggested to me that the hypothesized "God" I believed probably existed interacted with humans through prayer. Another way of describing this would be to say that I became convinced that prayer did something, and decided that the word "God" described the external entity involved as well as anything.

Given this, I began exploring the question with the assumption, not that the religious people were necessarily entirely wrong, but merely that they were probably dramatically overclaiming about their knowledge and information. Reading the Bible, not as a dogmatic and literal store of truth, but as a record of human experiences of God, I found it to offer both explanatory and predictive power for my own experiences and those of others.

How do I know anything about other people? We talk and talk, but the words aren't the things we talk about. I have to guess at what things are, and find vocabulary that helps express them. It's not a reliable process, but it's better than nothing.

[seebs]

As you yourself noted when Jesus said “I am the door” it didn’t mean that he had hinges and a knob. It was a metaphor, a poetic figure of speech. Now you want to change that to it doesn’t mean he has big brass knobs only little stainless steel ones.

I honestly have no idea what this is intended to communicate.

Then we aren’t talking about how God created the universe. You jump back and forth. God creating the universe is literal…except it doesn’t say that God created the universe. It’s a story about God building a bizarre construct that doesn’t exist in the universe

And yet, it seems to say that there was nothing, and then God made things, and then there was stuff.

The problem is that your faith requires you to abandon honesty.

I don't find this persuasive, merely insulting.

The text is stupid, it is mind numbingly stupid. You realize that the text is stupid and want to recast it as a metaphor. People have been doing this for a long time because it has always been stupid.

Except that, once again, you're starting with the assumption that the literal meaning is the "real" meaning, and since it's not true, obviously it must be some kind of dodge to reinterpret it. You can't get away from your own article of faith, here; every time you start talking about something else, I blink and you've gone back to interpreting everything in terms of a premise which was false when we started, is still false now, and will probably be false for the forseeable future.

And the biggest part of the utter stupidity of the story is the claim that a supernatural god is the instigator.

And we know it's stupid, because it contradicts your personal presuppositions?

So we are back again at the question you cannot or will not answer. What criteria are you using that demonstrates the creation story to be non-literal and the creator in that story literal at the same time? What standard are you using?

This may come as a total shock, but often when people describe things with metaphors, they are describing things, and the things they describe exist.

In short, you're still caught up on this hidden premise that "non-literal" just means "has no meaning" or "is false". You're applying your premise instead of actually considering the alternative.

You're critiquing non-Euclidean geometry, and then using the parallel postulate to prove that it's all nonsense.

The only thing I see working here is your imagination.

Then maybe you should read what I actually write, rather than what I would have been writing if I'd shared your premises.

Why do you bother with the bible at all when your only source is your own imagination?:banghead:

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. :)

[Biff the unclean]

Ok, so you say evolution is reality and that we are descendant of of apes?
Don’t you get it Earl? Let there be light and the construction of a firmament and a sky ocean are metaphors for the big bang and gravity. Blowing on a pile of dust and making a girl out of a spare rib is an allegory for descent with modification. And God the creator is a non-literal way of saying God the creator.

And to think that scientists had to wait ‘til the 19th and 20th centuries to learn this when all they ever had to do was ask a theologian

[Biff the unclean]

And yet, it seems to say that there was nothing, and then God made things, and then there was stuff.
Except the stuff he is said to make doesn’t exist. But that doesn’t matter to you.

Except that, once again, you're starting with the assumption that the literal meaning is the "real" meaning, and since it's not true, obviously it must be some kind of dodge to reinterpret it.
And still you won’t tell us how to tell the literal from the non-literal

You can't get away from your own article of faith, here; every time you start talking about something else, I blink and you've gone back to interpreting everything in terms of a premise which was false when we started, is still false now, and will probably be false for the forseeable future.
You keep claiming it is false and yet never get around to telling us the criteria that shows it to be false. Have you somehow missed the pile of requests to do so? I’ll ask again, what criteria are you using to tell the literal from the non-literal?

And we know it's stupid, because it contradicts your personal presuppositions?
We know a literal God is a stupid concept for the same reason we know a literal firmament is stupid. You see no one has told us what criteria separates them.

This may come as a total shock, but often when people describe things with metaphors, they are describing things, and the things they describe exist.
Sop what is “God” a metaphor of?

In short, you're still caught up on this hidden premise that "non-literal" just means "has no meaning" or "is false". You're applying your premise instead of actually considering the alternative.
Then tell me your criteria for telling metaphor from literal meaning. If the Fall was a metaphor was the crucifixion also? If not why not?

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
There are over nineteen thousand posts with your name on them that say otherwise.

[Merzbow42]

That is a much much better question.

Speaking only for myself: I spent quite a long time trying to puzzle out moral and cosmological questions with the assumption that all these religious people were obviously wrong. I ended up reinventing a certain amount of what they had, and ended up roughly a Deist. Later experiences suggested to me that the hypothesized "God" I believed probably existed interacted with humans through prayer. Another way of describing this would be to say that I became convinced that prayer did something, and decided that the word "God" described the external entity involved as well as anything.

Given this, I began exploring the question with the assumption, not that the religious people were necessarily entirely wrong, but merely that they were probably dramatically overclaiming about their knowledge and information. Reading the Bible, not as a dogmatic and literal store of truth, but as a record of human experiences of God, I found it to offer both explanatory and predictive power for my own experiences and those of others.

How do I know anything about other people? We talk and talk, but the words aren't the things we talk about. I have to guess at what things are, and find vocabulary that helps express them. It's not a reliable process, but it's better than nothing.

Thanks for the explanation. If I understand correctly, you see the Bible as having validity because the experiences recounted in it match up with spiritual experiences you have had. The whole thing can be taken metaphorically and it would still have such validity for you. Fair enough, but the problem still is that you're making universal, cosmological claims based on a purely personal experience. Isn't a more likely explanation for your experiences (and those of other Christians) psychological?

[seebs]

Thanks for the explanation. If I understand correctly, you see the Bible as having validity because the experiences recounted in it match up with spiritual experiences you have had. The whole thing can be taken metaphorically and it would still have such validity for you.

I don't know about that. For instance, some of the Hebrew history strikes me as rather more "biased and written by the Hebrews" than "metaphorical".

I think it would still be interesting; if there's no truth to the factual claims of the Gospel accounts (which, by and large, are at least of the right literary style to be considered as literal), I would have to revise some of my theories.

Fair enough, but the problem still is that you're making universal, cosmological claims based on a purely personal experience. Isn't a more likely explanation for your experiences (and those of other Christians) psychological?

I have no framework for evaluating such probabilities.

In the end... I decided, quite a while back, that I was going to give apparent reality the benefit of the doubt, and interact with it as though it were real. Could I handwave my religious experiences away? Sure. I could also handwave away my beliefs about morality. I could handwave away what little empathy I have. I could handwave away my belief that other entities that look like I think I look have internal state; after all, it's speculative.

But that way lies madness.

I have no obvious way to establish the probability of claims such as "this universe was created" or "this universe is uncreated". I have no sample space to speak of on the question of whether the experience of prayer is really influenced by an external entity.

So I'm going with a model that has good explanatory and predictive power, which I have found is working well for other people too. I can't prove that this model is correct, but I can't prove that it's incorrect, either.

Good enough.

[Steve Schlicht]

So I'm going with a model that has good explanatory and predictive power, which I have found is working well for other people too. I can't prove that this model is correct, but I can't prove that it's incorrect, either.

Good enough.

I agree with many of your assertions, however, to this day I still don't know if you've ever actually articulated a model.

I'd be interested in it.

Steve

[seebs]

Except the stuff he is said to make doesn’t exist. But that doesn’t matter to you.

You know, I once saw you telling a pantheist that he had failed to demonstrate that his alleged god existed.

Until I read this post, I thought you were just confused, but apparently, you do in fact believe that the universe does not exist.

And still you won’t tell us how to tell the literal from the non-literal

I've given specific rubrics in the past.

You keep claiming it is false and yet never get around to telling us the criteria that shows it to be false. Have you somehow missed the pile of requests to do so? I’ll ask again, what criteria are you using to tell the literal from the non-literal?

Literary style would probably be the most obvious. Looking at questions like "was the person who wrote this down in any position to have experience on the matter" helps.

But honestly, the literary style alone is good enough most of the time.

Then tell me your criteria for telling metaphor from literal meaning. If the Fall was a metaphor was the crucifixion also? If not why not?

Well, as I've pointed out repeatedly: Genesis is not in the same genre as the Gospels.

There are over nineteen thousand posts with your name on them that say otherwise.

I have offered many sources other than "my own imagination", ranging from empirical results to the holy books of ancient goatherders.

[seebs]

I agree with many of your assertions, however, to this day I still don't know if you've ever actually articulated a model.

Not very clearly, because I don't have very good words for the underlying stuff. I am currently wrestling with the question of whether dualism is either necessary or desireable.

In general, though, I currently believe that religious experiences are, in at least some cases (and probably rather a lot), experiences of external reality, although peoples' interpretations of them tend to reflect cultural biases and presuppositions. I am currently convinced that the Gospel message accurately depicts the nature of humanity's relationship with God. This gives a fair number of moderately testable claims. For instance, I would expect that people who are very proud of their righteousness would normally be, in fact, fairly nasty and not inclined to improve. This has been borne out quite reliably.

[benjdm]

For instance, I would expect that people who are very proud of their righteousness would normally be, in fact, fairly nasty and not inclined to improve. This has been borne out quite reliably.
This would seem to be more about a test of a model of human nature than a test of a relationship with God.

[Donkeykong]

I'n a related post who would liberal christians reconcile evolution with the cosmology of original sin and a jesus asavior? (if this has already been explained, forgive me I have been busy on another thread)

[Biff the unclean]

You know, I once saw you telling a pantheist that he had failed to demonstrate that his alleged god existed.

Until I read this post, I thought you were just confused, but apparently, you do in fact believe that the universe does not exist.

I’m glad to see that you treat my writings with the same degree of respect that you have for the bible. Substituting meanings from your imagination for what is actually written.
The pantheist had not produced a God. The pantheist had renamed something they knew to exist with the title “God” so that they could falsely claim a God.
So what is this continual problem that is being passed off as “liberal” religion? Is it some un-matured ego thing where the liberals see themselves as the source of all information? Or is it a learning disability, some strange form of dyslexia where the meanings of written statements become distorted instead of simply the letter order?


(B)And still you won’t tell us how to tell the literal from the non-literal

(S) I've given specific rubrics in the past.
All you have done in the past was claim that you knew non-literal when you saw non-literal. But you have demonstrated by your wacky reinterpretation of my comments on pantheism above that you are incapable of doing so

Literary style would probably be the most obvious. Looking at questions like "was the person who wrote this down in any position to have experience on the matter" helps.

But honestly, the literary style alone is good enough most of the time.
“Gospel” is the name of the literary style that the Gospels are written in. The term means “good news” but specifically the style was created to announce the good news that a statesman (like an Augustus)or a general had become a god. The literary form often included the announcement that this worthy was a son of Jupiter or Apollo. Gospels were always written by person or persons in a position to have had experience in the matter.

And you don’t believe a single solitary gospel that announces the godhood of a Caesar is literal so I’m calling your bluff.

Well, as I've pointed out repeatedly: Genesis is not in the same genre as the Gospels.
So you are saying that literal Jesus died an excruciating and horrible death for the sake of something he knew to be a non-literal metaphor. That’s an insane thing for Jesus to do.

I have offered many sources other than "my own imagination", ranging from empirical results to the holy books of ancient goatherders.
Nope, I’ve been reading your blurbs for years and it always gets back one way or another to information whose only source is your imagination.

[Steve Schlicht]

Not very clearly, because I don't have very good words for the underlying stuff. I am currently wrestling with the question of whether dualism is either necessary or desireable.

In general, though, I currently believe that religious experiences are, in at least some cases (and probably rather a lot), experiences of external reality, although peoples' interpretations of them tend to reflect cultural biases and presuppositions. I am currently convinced that the Gospel message accurately depicts the nature of humanity's relationship with God. This gives a fair number of moderately testable claims. For instance, I would expect that people who are very proud of their righteousness would normally be, in fact, fairly nasty and not inclined to improve. This has been borne out quite reliably.

Interesting, do you also believe that The Upanishads accurately depict the nature of humanity's relationship to Krishna, action and karmic systems?

Steve

[Steve Schlicht]

Not very clearly, because I don't have very good words for the underlying stuff. I am currently wrestling with the question of whether dualism is either necessary or desireable.

Keep us posted on any changes or insight you may have whenever you arrive at a cohesive and articulable theory. I'm always interested in your views.

In my view, dualism is an "optical" illusion derived out of the necessity of being an observer of events from a relative view and perceived by a brain which is...itself, an object of observation by others from their relative view.

The fact is that we are all star stuff in perpetual flux.

In general, though, I currently believe that religious experiences are, in at least some cases (and probably rather a lot), experiences of external reality, although peoples' interpretations of them tend to reflect cultural biases and presuppositions.

That, in my opinion, is a very important observation and should lead people to perhaps better articulate sound foundations for their worldview as given by reality in plain view...naturalism.

I am currently convinced that the Gospel message accurately depicts the nature of humanity's relationship with God.

A rather unsupported and stark presupposition in itself, seebs (of course, we've been over this before).

This gives a fair number of moderately testable claims. For instance, I would expect that people who are very proud of their righteousness would normally be, in fact, fairly nasty and not inclined to improve. This has been borne out quite reliably.

Actually, I cannot disagree with you more. It is, admittedly, the foundational Christian claim that people are bad, bad things because of sin. It is an imaginary illness, imo.

Individuals do not require supernaturally laced messages purportedly derived by other humans through inspirational contact with a being beyond the known universe who somehow managed to derive its own sense of morals and ethics on its own without any other dictate.

We, as humans, derive our own.

Virtues like morality, kindness, justice and generosity are derived from natural human values and reason which have been tested by the commonality of our practical experience and critical analysis of the natural world we live in.

To be told how to behave by any of the purported God(s)ess(es) kind of defeats the whole purpose and value of simply being responsible.

Steve

[seebs]

I'n a related post who would liberal christians reconcile evolution with the cosmology of original sin and a jesus asavior? (if this has already been explained, forgive me I have been busy on another thread)

Many don't believe in original sin. Original sin is a Catholic invention; the Orthodox never believed in it. It's a speculative interpretation, and not consistently accepted.

Without original sin, all the problems go away.

Catholics just assert that there was a specific Adam, who may have been created by giving a soul to a primate rather than from literal clay.

[seebs]

This would seem to be more about a test of a model of human nature than a test of a relationship with God.

It largely is.

[seebs]

Steve, I think you're talking more about Calvinism in particular, and less about Christianity. Christianity as originally understood taught that humans had inherent value and worth, but also flaws. I find this teaching fairly convincing. I do not think that people are inherently very very bad, or whatever, but I also think that, in their initial condition, they definitely have flaws.

[Steve Schlicht]

Steve, I think you're talking more about Calvinism in particular, and less about Christianity. Christianity as originally understood taught that humans had inherent value and worth, but also flaws. I find this teaching fairly convincing. I do not think that people are inherently very very bad, or whatever, but I also think that, in their initial condition, they definitely have flaws.

I'm mostly interested in how some people find "articulable definition" by meandering within Christianity while avoiding Calvinism.

Flaws are one thing, "sin"...in my view...is defined differently.

As such, the way these are addressed are also different especially regarding how they are dealt with (personal responsibility vs faith in divine forgiveness).

What are your views on that particular nuance?

Steve

PS Give me some biblical scripture that promotes the notion that humans have inherent value and worth when you get a chance as well.

[No Robots]

Give me some biblical scripture that promotes the notion that humans have inherent value and worth when you get a chance as well.

Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they?—Mt 6:26

[Steve Schlicht]

Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they?—Mt 6:26

Hey, that's a great quote!

Birds build nests and gather into barns.

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-c/barnswallow-10.jpg

Sow...what?

:wave:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Gen 3:16-3:19

Love, in my view, is unconditional..as is forgiveness.

Steve

[seebs]

I'm mostly interested in how some people find "articulable definition" by meandering within Christianity while avoiding Calvinism.

Well, keep in mind, Calvinism's the modern innovation. The Catholics have a fairly coherent and defensible position which is quite verbosely articulated, and which even has original sin, but which does not come within hailing distance of claiming that people are inherently worthless.

Flaws are one thing, "sin"...in my view...is defined differently.

The problem is that the term is used very differently by different groups of people, so it can denote nearly anything. Strictly speaking, any shortcoming or flaw is probably "sin".

A lot of Christian groups like to use the word only for horrific things, by which we mean "sexual activities they don't publically admit to".

As such, the way these are addressed are also different especially regarding how they are dealt with (personal responsibility vs faith in divine forgiveness).

What are your views on that particular nuance?

My view is that the simple answers are mostly wrong. Can we be good enough to earn salvation? No. Does being good matter? Yes.

Imagine, if you will, that a small child destroyed a valuable sports car. The owner of the car might be very unhappy, and demand some kind of compensation. If the kid dutifully scrapes together $1.73 plus a pack of bubblegum, this being all his worldly wealth, and offers it as compensation, there's no way it's enough to cover the cost of the car, but the willingness to do so is itself a thing which might inspire forgiveness.

I do not believe it is possible to earn Heaven by trying to buy it, but this doesn't mean actions or decisions don't matter. The distinction that's being drawn, I believe, is one of motivation and purpose, not outwardly observable actions.

If the question is "what percentage of my wealth is enough to give away to force God to grant me salvation", the answer is "even 100% is not enough", because you're asking the wrong question.

PS Give me some biblical scripture that promotes the notion that humans have inherent value and worth when you get a chance as well.

The First Book of Moses, called Genesis, Chapter 1, Verses 26-31

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The Creation is described with "it was good" every time, until the creation of Man, at which point Creation is "very good".

Beyond that, I think actions speak louder than words.

The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 3, Verses 16-17

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

I see humanity as having substantial inherent value. If there is one message I think is worth taking from the Gospel story, it is this: When you meet a person, you have a reasonable assurance that a perfect judge has evaluated that person as a whole, and found that person to be worth dying for. If this is not immediately obvious to you about a given person, question your vision before you question that person's worth.

[seebs]

Love, in my view, is unconditional..as is forgiveness.

I wrote this piece for the General Apologetics forum at ChristianForums. It was deleted (although it was later returned) on the grounds that one of the mods didn't see what it had to do with apologetics:

http://www.seebs.net/log/archives/000187.html

The answer is this: The reason to love someone without those conditions is that the times when love is most needed are the times when it is least deserved.

[RPS]

A perfect god, who wanted to draw people to himself, (Ie. loving) could EASILY have done a vastly better job on the bible. He chose to write it in such a way that it would be interpreted as just another myth, by anyone reading it with an open mind. He also could have written it in such a way that it would not lead to opposing interpretations by fanatics among his followers, who in turn carry(ied) out tragic wars over it.Freedom isn't free. Centuries ago Plato argued that democracy wouldn't work because people would prefer security to freedom as you apparently do. At least Mussolini made the trains run on time, eh? But I'll readily take a miserable freedom over sweetness-and-light oppression thank you very much.

[lpetrich]

Actually educated people have given up the Enlightenment understanding of scientific reasoning. Because is useless when discussing 'truth.' It's usefulness is quite limited. You should try to keep up.
And why is that?

Are you referring to postmodernism?

I'm sure glad, that as an uneducated person, I'm free from the above comments. :D
Touché! :D

Speaking only for myself: I spent quite a long time trying to puzzle out moral and cosmological questions with the assumption that all these religious people were obviously wrong.
Had you checked out a variety of religions? Or any Eastern philosophies or secular Western philosophies?

I ended up reinventing a certain amount of what they had, and ended up roughly a Deist.
Had you considered maltheism? I consider that VERY plausible.

Later experiences suggested to me that the hypothesized "God" I believed probably existed interacted with humans through prayer. Another way of describing this would be to say that I became convinced that prayer did something, and decided that the word "God" described the external entity involved as well as anything.
Did you also consider sorcery?

Given this, I began exploring the question with the assumption, not that the religious people were necessarily entirely wrong, but merely that they were probably dramatically overclaiming about their knowledge and information. Reading the Bible, not as a dogmatic and literal store of truth, but as a record of human experiences of God, I found it to offer both explanatory and predictive power for my own experiences and those of others.
Did you read all of the Bible, or just the parts that some church had recommended? And were you willing to accept that the Bible has any flaws?

And why the Bible and not other books?

[Ubercat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubercat
A perfect god, who wanted to draw people to himself, (Ie. loving) could EASILY have done a vastly better job on the bible. He chose to write it in such a way that it would be interpreted as just another myth, by anyone reading it with an open mind. He also could have written it in such a way that it would not lead to opposing interpretations by fanatics among his followers, who in turn carry(ied) out tragic wars over it.

Freedom isn't free. Centuries ago Plato argued that democracy wouldn't work because people would prefer security to freedom as you apparently do. At least Mussolini made the trains run on time, eh? But I'll readily take a miserable freedom over sweetness-and-light oppression thank you very much.

Whoaahh! What the FUCK? How do you get all THAT mess from what I posted? Oh. I get it. A strawman. Good job. You really had me going there for a second. Let's see if I can break it down into littler bits.

Your god is a monster who hides from people, and gives them conflicting stories about himself, that cause bloody wars throughout history. The OBVIOUS improvement would have been for him to introduce himself to each and every one of us, and let us all know his expectations. THEN he'd have a right to condemn us, if we fail to do as he wishes. But you, being unable to admit that your god is a shit, make me out as saying. I wish god made us all automatons. That would be so great! :angel: :rolling:

Of course where biblegod is concerned, there IS no free will, anyhow. So what's your point?

-Ubercat

[RPS]

The OBVIOUS improvement would have been for him to introduce himself to each and every one of us, and let us all know his expectations. THEN he'd have a right to condemn us, if we fail to do as he wishes. But you, being unable to admit that your god is a shit, make me out as saying. I wish god made us all automatons.It's far from obvious. For example, haven't you read The Brothers Karamazov (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/dostoevsky/karamozov/files/karamozov.html)?

Of course where biblegod is concerned, there IS no free will, anyhow. So what's your point?It's quite the opposite, actually. It is materialism which precludes volitional freedom because the laws of cause and effect are relentless.

[Biff the unclean]

33 pages of liberals now followed by a fundi feeling all enabled. I guess that answers the OP

[fatpie42]

That's what happens when you believe in the Great Pumpkin. :rolling:

Um... you don't believe in the Great Pumpkin? Blasphemy! He blatantly hasn't waited long enough (he hasn't REALLY waited 20 years). I waited and the great pumpkin came!

*feel my sarcasm*

Uber,

Puzzle me this. If the Holy Spirit converts people, and the Holy Spirit never made itself manifest to unbelievers, how would anyone be converted?

Answer me this, since we don't believe in the holy spirit and it has never 'made itself manifest' to us in a way we find convincingly holy-spirity, why should we find your suggestion compelling.

There are converts to all sorts of religions with the same levels of conviction. Not all of them believe in the holy spirit.

[fatpie42]

But, you did not answer the other question. Did god create the universe or was it the big bang? Science claim the universe started as a big bang, the bible says otherwise and you said you did not believe in the genesis story, but you still believe that god created the universe, just not in six days? Is that correct?


Two possibilities here:
1. God created/'made possible' the big bang
2. God makes all things possible from outside of time, so in that sense 'creates everything'.

Neither really conflicts with science. Religion doesn't need to.

[seebs]

Had you checked out a variety of religions? Or any Eastern philosophies or secular Western philosophies?

Yes. I was very fond of Zen Buddhism (and still am). I have always been fascinated by that.

Had you considered maltheism? I consider that VERY plausible.

Thought about it, rejected it as ludicrous. I have no trouble imagining much worse worlds than this.

Did you also consider sorcery?

Yes. I don't think it's a suitable explanation for the specific experiences of interactive prayer, although I think it's a nearly-plausible explanation for the apparent effect of intercessory prayer in particular. I just don't think it's as good an explanation as my current model.

Did you read all of the Bible, or just the parts that some church had recommended? And were you willing to accept that the Bible has any flaws?

I was actively hostile to churches, so I don't think their recommendations would have carried much weight. I mostly poked around looking at Paul because I was looking for bashable prooftexts; reading longer passages, I began to suspect that the people quoting the half-sentence snippets were not representing the text fairly.

I assumed that the Bible was a book written by people, not particularly magical. I still tend to assume this. It is a little harder to describe what constitutes a "flaw", though. Is a diary flawed if it reveals as much about the writer as about the writer's day?

And why the Bible and not other books?

Er, where would you get the idea of "not other books"? I read tons of books. I don't think I would have even considered the Gospel if I hadn't put some serious time into thinking about koans.

[angela2]

There are converts to all sorts of religions with the same levels of conviction. Not all of them believe in the holy spirit.
That's true. I've chosen Christianity, and I believe in the Trinitarian God. I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

[angela2]

Two possibilities here:
1. God created/'made possible' the big bang
2. God makes all things possible from outside of time, so in that sense 'creates everything'.

Neither really conflicts with science. Religion doesn't need to.
One more possibility. The bible was never intended to be read as literal science. No conflict there either.

[angela2]

Hey, that's a great quote!

Birds build nests and gather into barns.

Sow...what?

:wave:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Gen 3:16-3:19

Love, in my view, is unconditional..as is forgiveness.

Steve

Yes! The above citation gives the condition of humanity and the world consequent on human disobedience. But all of this is reversed in Jesus Christ.
While we were still sinners, God sent his only Son.

Since that sending happened outside of time, we could say that there is God never a time when God did not forgive and love unconditionally. Have you noticed the passage in Genesis where, after God reads Adam and Eve the riot act for knowing they are naked, he sews clothes for them?

[Steve Schlicht]

Yes! The above citation gives the condition of humanity and the world consequent on human disobedience. But all of this is reversed in Jesus Christ.

But you miss the greater point as depicted beautifully by the photograph, angela2.

Other species in reality behave in the same way...contrary to the bible claims.

They care and protect each other and build and toil and soar freely.

They live, they move and they perish into the soil in perpetual interdependent co-arising.

No God(s)ess(es), no illness, no imaginary cure...just wondrous experience!

While we were still sinners, God sent his only Son.

Who was also God and was intentionally slaughtered in a gracious suicide to reverse his own curse or anger due to his own disappointment at two of his own initial imperfect creations?

Please.

Since that sending happened outside of time, we could say that there is God never a time when God did not forgive and love unconditionally.

Well, since you assert there exists an unprovable "place" outside of time why draw the line there...anything in the imaginative and unfalsifiable realm can be asserted once that door is opened.

Mxlplx, the multi-faceted green leprechaun jester beyond time and space flatulated the universe into being which lasted only mere moments to Mxlplx. A "mere moment" being a billion light years to you and me.

Have you noticed the passage in Genesis where, after God reads Adam and Eve the riot act for knowing they are naked, he sews clothes for them?

What was he ashamed of?

;)

This is the same God that needed to send himself as his own son (himself) to be a sacrifice to himself after a few thousand years after the Adam/Eve debacle?

This is the same "sacrifice" of no-death that also asserts that the murdered scapegoat lives eternally in a paradise of gold and glory as the reigning prince?

What exactly was lost in the sacrifice again?

All I need is some sense that you realize that this is a very illogical set of claims when critically examined.

Steve

[lpetrich]

(maltheism...)
Thought about it, rejected it as ludicrous. I have no trouble imagining much worse worlds than this.
Except that the evil god of maltheism could create good things so that bad things will seem that much more painful. Because if we experienced nothing but bad things, they wouldn't seem so bad because because we'd have no good things to compare them to. If we had nobody to love, we'd never experience the pain of losing a loved one, for instance.

I assumed that the Bible was a book written by people, not particularly magical. I still tend to assume this. It is a little harder to describe what constitutes a "flaw", though. Is a diary flawed if it reveals as much about the writer as about the writer's day?
Except that the Bible is often advertised as being much more than a diary -- the perfect science textbook, the perfect history textbook, the perfect moral guide, etc.

I don't think I would have even considered the Gospel if I hadn't put some serious time into thinking about koans.
Except that Jesus Christ did not exactly act like a Zen instructor, asking his followers to contemplate and interpret short anecdotes like

Two hands clap and there is a sound.
What is the sound of one hand?

and then discussing various interpretations of them.

[angela2]

But you miss the greater point as depicted beautifully by the photograph, angela2.

Other species in reality behave in the same way...contrary to the bible claims.
Yes, other species behave in the same way...just as the bible claims.
They care and protect each other and build and toil and soar freely.

They live, they move and they perish into the soil in perpetual interdependent co-arising.

No God(s)ess(es), no illness, no imaginary cure...just wondrous experience!
Do you really think that's a description of nature? So why is it the lion does not lie down with the lamb?

Who was also God and was intentionally slaughtered in a gracious suicide to reverse his own curse or anger due to his own disappointment at two of his own initial imperfect creations?

Please.
Please indeed. If you want to argue against Christian theology, rewriting it first is cheating.
Well, since you assert there exists an unprovable "place" outside of time why draw the line there...anything in the imaginative and unfalsifiable realm can be asserted once that door is opened.
Or not. I thought you had confidence in the truthfulness of humanity.
All I need is some sense that you realize that this is a very illogical set of claims when critically examined.

Steve
Your claims are illogical but Christian theology is not.

[Biff the unclean]

(SS) Who was also God and was intentionally slaughtered in a gracious suicide to reverse his own curse or anger due to his own disappointment at two of his own initial imperfect creations?

(A2) Please indeed. If you want to argue against Christian theology, rewriting it first is cheating.
Your claims are illogical but Christian theology is not

What Christian claims did Steve change? What logic did he abandon?

Who was also God…. This is the very claim you were making in your many blurbs about the trinity

was intentionally slaughtered in a gracious suicide…. When a person is 100% sure that placing themselves in a given position will cause their own deaths and they do it anyway that is suicide.
When a person has other options available to them that render the suicide gratuitous.

to reverse his own curse or anger due to his own disappointment at two of his own initial imperfect creations?… that’s all in Genesis. Imperfect creations in that the knowledge of good and evil was left out of them. People in such a condition today are considered flawed. The are also considered flawed in the story for “choosing” evil.

[Steven Mading]

I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept a standard of language that requires me to pretend the inability to think past, or even up to, the level of literary analysis normally expected of kindergarteners.

If you want a response, don't lie. I see no reason to dignify your insistent need to strawman my position like this. Take this closing bit for example:


Seriously, not one word in your argumentation would be out of place in a fundamentalist pulpit.
There's no way you could possibly be thick headed enough to not realize the above statement is an utter lie. You know damn well that I've called the bible false. You know that would not be a welcome thing to say in a fundamentalist pulpit.

I don't tolerate dishonesty. Stop equating my position (the bible is literally false) with the exact opposite position of fundamentalists (the bible is literally true). Every time you do that you are engaging in dishonesty.

[RPS]

I don't tolerate dishonesty. Stop equating my position (the bible is literally false) with the exact opposite position of fundamentalists (the bible is literally true). Every time you do that you are engaging in dishonesty.If you are speaking true here you'll apologize immediately. Unless you are prepared to argue that "I am the Door" means that Jesus had hinges and that was what the text set out to convey, you don't really claim that the Bible is literally false across the board. Accordingly, the interpretive imperative is established and you've been dishonest to assert otherwise.

[Steven Mading]

If you are speaking true here you'll apologize immediately. Unless you are prepared to argue that "I am the Door" means that Jesus had hinges and that was what the text set out to convey, you don't really claim that the Bible is literally false across the board.
I didn't say "across the board". I will not apologise for someone else's misrepresentation of what I said.

There are sections of the bible that use symbolic language. There are sections that do not. Where seebs and I seem to disagree is in which parts are which, and the criteria for deciding this. He calls much more of it metaphorical than I do. Neither of us go 100% in one direction or the other. His criteria, as far as I can tell, seems to be this: Look at which parts would be false if they were meant literally - those parts must therefore be a metaphor. That method of interpretation contains within it the tautological assumption that the bible cannot be false. That the people (yes, people - fallable, normal people) who wrote it cannot possibly have written something false because they actually meant it and were just wrong about it. Oh no - to analyze it with the mindset that it's actually possible for bronze-age shephearders to actually be wrong about something means I'm somehow looking at it with a "kindergarden" shallow way, according to his rhetoric.

I don't apologise for reacting this way to his line of arguing. He has engaged in ad-hominem fallacies throughout and seems utterly unapologetic about it.

[lpetrich]

I agree with Steven Mading there -- what he describes is a very common style of liberal-Xian Bible interpretation. I find it very annoying, since it makes liberal Xians seem like fundies who don't like being called fundies.

You'd expect them to point out at least one part of the Bible that they consider bad, but they prefer coming up with some convoluted "explanation" to explain it away.

And it must be said that fundies also will try to explain away parts of the Bible that they dislike.


But acknowledging that the Bible is flawed would mean considering the Bible to be something less than an absolute authority. Which makes me wonder why it is necessary to do so.

[angela2]

Baaaa

[Ubercat]

quote of angela2
The end goal of Christianity is Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and forever. He is the one in whom all thing hold together, and if there is any effectiveness to Christianity, it is through him, in him and by him.

Baaaa

Did your jesus tell you to make this pointless post? Or WAS there a point? :huh:

-Ubercat

[lpetrich]

Sorry for not making the last sentence of my recent post clearer. I meant:

But acknowledging that the Bible is flawed would mean considering the Bible to be something less than an absolute authority. Which makes me wonder why it is necessary to treat the Bible as an absolute authority.

[angela2]

Sorry for not making the last sentence of my recent post clearer. I meant:

But acknowledging that the Bible is flawed would mean considering the Bible to be something less than an absolute authority. Which makes me wonder why it is necessary to treat the Bible as an absolute authority.
Me too.