Are You Religious?

[geodave]

Well, I know it's not the orthodox view -- but is it any different than the way scientist date very old things?

Person: How old is this thing?

Scientist: Well, we can date it using scientific methods. First, can you tell me how old it is?

Person: WHAT??

Scientist: Well I have to know how old it is to determine which method to use to tell how old it is.

Person: That's scientific?

Scientist: Of course!

So, as you can see, we don't know anything about anything.

Anyway, I don't see it as "cherry-picking", just run-of-the-mill skepticism. (On a side note, anyone know where I can buy a cheap cherry-picker? I really need one to fix my roof.) There's some evidence that the first six books were edited anyway, so maybe the redacted pieces were more interesting? Even the stuff that's left in (like the references to genetic engineering and inter-species reproduction) is kinda weird, so no, I don't take it all literally. It's not that there COULDN'T have been a Tower of Babel, (there probably was some tower) but that doesn't mean that's where languages came from. [Was the tower of babel a rocket launch pad? Interesting theory, but I'm skeptical.]

Believing that there's a literal angel with a flaming sword guarding Eden is fine, if you want to believe that. I find it more logically satisfying to believe that Eden is under water near the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates. It's not that it didn't exist, it's just that the version we have of the story is not necessarily a technically accurate description of exactly what happened.

I know most people aren't comfortable with my hybrid view, where Jesus is historical but Noah might be allegorical, but honestly, a lot of this stuff is over 3000 years old. We're talking hieroglyphs and pyramids now. There is no definitive record from before, say, the time of Solomon (or maybe David.) We weren't there, and we don't know what happened. More importantly, in my view, it DOESN'T MATTER what's literal and what's allegorical. The point is the lesson, or the moral, or the point, of the story. This is just like the if-then statements being true or false even if you don't know the truth of the if or the then.

Should you be nice to other people? YES. Should you raise your children to be decent? YES. Should you steal? NO. These things are not dependent on Hebrew letters on some rocks, they are universal.

And before you ask, NO I am not a Universalist. I believe you cannot redeem yourself by yourself. You cannot pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. That is the whole point of Christianity.

Well, this got more in depth than I expected, but frankly, it's good to be up-front about myself. Too often I'm too coy, trying to play Socrates. I'm no Socrates.

[BitBuster]

So, as you can see, we don't know anything about anything.

Precisely what I've been arguing throughout this whole thread.

Anyway, I don't see it as "cherry-picking", just run-of-the-mill skepticism.

Then why not be skeptical of the whole thing? Usually, if you find that someone's wrong about a great many things, you tend to doubt the veracity of their claims in related areas. This, of course, doesn't prove or even necessarily suggest that EVERYTHING they're saying is wrong, but it does imply that you shouldn't blindly accept what they say in other areas simply because there's no obvious logical flaw.

There's some evidence that the first six books were edited anyway, so maybe the redacted pieces were more interesting?

Is this supposed to be a guide for life, a history text, or entertainment? If it's the latter, I can see your point, but if it's either of the first two, I would prefer the text without any human editing, thank you very much.

Even the stuff that's left in (like the references to genetic engineering and inter-species reproduction) is kinda weird, so no, I don't take it all literally.

So when Moses said not to kill...was he just being figurative?

It's not that there COULDN'T have been a Tower of Babel, (there probably was some tower) but that doesn't mean that's where languages came from.

It's not that there COULDN'T have been a God who shaped Eve from Adam's rib, but that doesn't mean that's where humans came from...once you've accepted that there was this guy who was the son of God who died and was raised from the dead, you really can't say, "Well, that whole Tower of Babel thing sort of seems improbable...perhaps it's figurative."

Believing that there's a literal angel with a flaming sword guarding Eden is fine, if you want to believe that. I find it more logically satisfying to believe that Eden is under water near the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates. It's not that it didn't exist, it's just that the version we have of the story is not necessarily a technically accurate description of exactly what happened.

Maybe Jesus didn't actually die. Maybe he faked his death. Or maybe he had a twin that was kept in hiding for 33 years and then wheeled out when he was needed.

We weren't there, and we don't know what happened.

Exactly.

More importantly, in my view, it DOESN'T MATTER what's literal and what's allegorical. The point is the lesson, or the moral, or the point, of the story. This is just like the if-then statements being true or false even if you don't know the truth of the if or the then.

See, I'd argue that it DOES matter. There's more to the Bible than just "oh, do unto others." And some of the "lessons" are somewhat dubious. The Tower Of Babel story, for instance, basically seems to guard against hubris and technological advancement. Well, where would we be now without those things?

BTW, I'm interested in hearing how you interpret the whole "before this generation perishes" thing.

Should you be nice to other people? YES. Should you raise your children to be decent? YES. Should you steal? NO. These things are not dependent on Hebrew letters on some rocks, they are universal.

...so why do we need the Bible?

Too often I'm too coy, trying to play Socrates. I'm no Socrates.

That's a good thing, from my POV.

Forget Socrates; the Sophists were where it was at!

[geodave]

Well, these arguments have been going on for centuries -- we won't solve them here.

There is a difference between oral traditions written down hundreds of years later in a language like Hebrew, and eyewitness accounts written in Greek. One reason most of us scoff at the Gnostic gospels is because they are not eyewitness accounts, where as Acts, for example, IS. (Also Matthew and John. Mark and Luke were associates of Paul and probably never met Jesus.)

The "this generation" thing kills me. It's been interpreted and reinterpreted over and over and still it doesn't match the facts. The best I can figure is the dispensational-type argument that prophetic time basically has "stopped" during the Christian era, and will start up again at some point when the end is near.

Also, unless Jesus returns during my lifetime, it doesn't really matter to ME PERSONALLY if he ever returns. (Oh, I think he will, eventually, because I trust Luke's account.) The truths about how to live and how to treat people are the same for me as they are for a first-century Christian (who probably believed Jesus was coming back during HIS lifetime. After all, Nero was AN antichrist.)

Frankly, the world has been "ending" since I was born. Serious, honest people told me how it was going to end in 1978, 1982, 1990, 1992, 2000, 2001, 2009 and of course this year. Puh-lease. We don't know the hour or the time. Just because Israel is a country, that doesn't mean anything else will happen in the next 100 years. You need to take the long view -- we just don't live long enough to understand (thanks to that genetic engineering stuff.)

I'm surprised you haven't asked me about the 666 thing yet. I'll see if I can find a good reference (or I'll make one.)

[BitBuster]

Well, yeah, we won't "solve" anything here...but is that what we're trying to do?

Re: eyewitness accounts, I just want to say that anyone who's studied psychology or the law in the slightest knows how unreliable eyewitness testimony is.

Again, I really don't think you need the Bible to lead a good, decent life. In fact, some of the things it teaches are ill-advised at best. A number of people have done deconstructions of the ten commandments, and I think the most obvious one is that you really shouldn't be expected to honour your parents if they abuse you.

The whole fascination with the "end of the world" is symptomatic of the human flair for melodrama, imo. Whether it's people claiming that Jesus is returning, or screaming about how the Commies are going to destroy our way of life...

The whole 666 thing doesn't really interest me. Maybe it reeks too much of superstition (I'll let someone else make the wise-*** comment about superstition as it relates to the main topic of this thread ).

[geodave]

Here's one article on it, just for fun:

http://www.av1611.org/666/barcode.html

Until it's on my hand or forehead, I'm not worried.

[BitBuster]

I deal with barcodes pretty much non-stop at my job. Perhaps I should be seeking a different means of employment. Those darn libraries! So insidious.

[Phazite]

I'm not trying to disprove logic. I'm just saying that if we're saying that we "know" A or B because of logic, that presupposes that our system of logic is accurate/true/whatever.



But yeah, I suppose proving that it is inconsistent would show that it's flawed...I don't know, maybe I'm walking right into a paradox or contradiction here.

It would presuppose that, yes. Now, if you have your internally consistent system of logic, you can see how it compares with the world we observe. Perhaps it will accurately describe reality in some cases and not in others.

After all, even Moses didn't write the end of Deueteronomy, where Moses dies.

There is evidence that multiple authors wrote not just Deueteronomy, but all of the books. The bible seems to me to be a big game of telephone.

I'm a firm believer that myth doesn't come from nowhere. Do I think that Noah literally collected two of each species (and seven pairs of some)? Maybe. Is it possible that this is metaphorical? Yes. Did SOMETHING catastrophic happen the past involving a flood. PROBABLY.

Or, knowing that floods happen (and cause destruction), all it could have taken to start this story is the imagination of not just any ordinary flood, but a great floor that covered the whole world. No grand catastrophy required.

Well, I know it's not the orthodox view -- but is it any different than the way scientist date very old things?

Person: How old is this thing?

Scientist: Well, we can date it using scientific methods. First, can you tell me how old it is?

Person: WHAT??

Scientist: Well I have to know how old it is to determine which method to use to tell how old it is.

Person: That's scientific?

Scientist: Of course!

So, as you can see, we don't know anything about anything.

It's not like that. If you know an approximate age, which you must first determine using other means, you can choose the best radiometeric clock to use to find a more accurate date.

Here's one article on it, just for fun:

http://www.av1611.org/666/barcode.html

Until it's on my hand or forehead, I'm not worried.

I don't find number patterns to be very convincing, considering the affinity of our brains for patterns. You could find a number of other patterns and numbers in a barcode, or in anything really. You only see it as significant because the number 666 means something to you. What else could you find that number in?

[geodave]

666 also showed up in the "double this number" thread. So does that mean anything?

And yes, I over-simplified the radiometric dating thing to make a point. Dating anything that old is ALWAYS a guess. We don't really know if any of those dating systems actually work.

And the big flood is NOT like ordinary floods (like the Nile). People run away from a normal flood, they don't build a boat.

And why are there big boats buried by the pyramids? What's up with that?

[James]

New study: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers

(wish I had a subscription so I could read the actual paper, but oh well).

"This is rather interesting, and reinforces something we've been saying for a while. Religion gives people bad reasons to be good, and if your motivation for doing good is to score brownie points with God so you'll get into heaven, that's a *very* bad reason. Similarly, when Christians act baffled why atheists would ever perform any moral kindness without a belief in God, it's because they genuinely don't grasp empathy and compassion as motivators, as they haven't been taught such things are relevant. Certainly there are people both religious and compassionate, but once again we are able to confirm no necessary link between religiosity and morality." - Martin Wagner of The Atheist Experience, a pretty awesome show

[BitBuster]

This might be worth a post: