lukethebandgeek

What always bothers me, is when people defend thier faith with quotes from the Bible. They assume that the Bible is an infallible scource. They believe that it is the "Word of God."

Well, why exactly do these people believe that? Because thier parents told them that it was? That's not a good enought reason for me.

__________________
Yes, band camp is all it's cracked up to be.

So I like Chrono... So what?

MSD

Circular logic. God said the Bible is the word of God, and we know this because it's written in the Bible. Any time I try to challenge it, I get "You have to have faith."


I've got nothign against God, but most of his fan club annoys the hell out of me.

Kostya

Circular indeed...

In the same way I can say 'Leprechauns are real, I know a Leprechaun told me.'

The bottom line as Self Destruct has already pointed out is that one need faith, thus the Bible is not a valid source by any rational deduction, and remains only valid to those who have faith in its veracity. However, since they have faith, they are not compelled to prove rationally to you why they believe in the Bible, and thus why using quotes from it as a valid source is Ok. It's valid for them but not for you.

asaris

Well, actually, "Leprechauns are real, a Leprechaun told me" is pretty good evidence for the existence of Leprechauns. Of course, exactly how good evidence it is depends on how trustworthy you and your eyes are.

It does indeed come down to "The Bible is the Word of God", which we believe because we were taught it. Again, there are worse reasons to believe things; I'm sure you all believe that 2 + 2 = 4, but how many of you have saw it proved, and how many of you just trusted your math teacher?

As far as validity of sources go, the NT, at least, is a pretty damn good one by historical standards. It was written relatively soon after the events took place, the manuscripts we have are quite old and quite numerous, etc. We have better reason to believe the events in the NT took place, prejudice against miracles aside, than for most events that happened in the ancient world.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Bill O'Rights

Because, as MrSelfDestruct pointed out, There are those that believe that the Bible is the "Truth". How do they know this? Because the Bible says so. Can't argue with that...right?

Actually, if I recall correctly (granted, it's been a number of years ago), but I'm pretty sure that Dad proved it to me with Hershey's Kisses.

No, come to think of it...it was M&Ms. 'Cause I got to eat them if I got the answers right.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Willravel

I think it's less important to question the bibles factual validity, and more important to learn from it's morals.
As someone who reads the bible on a daily basis, I know that there are invaluable lessons packed into every bite. People learn how to treat other people and our world with compassion and intelligence, which is not a natural action for people. If we can learn to override the selfish simple urges and act (what most people would cconsider) moral and right because of the bible, then it's worth it.
As for the bible being a valid source, yes no one can prove that it's right, and yes it is circular logic that is perpetuated by the church(es). I agree that it's important to check the source of something this important. And just bcause it's the best selling piece of literature of all time (beat that Harry Potter), doesn't make it right. It is easy to question the source of something that old. Something that outrageous. It makes it very easy to play devils advocate, no pun intended. I think what's important is to say to yourself, "Okay, it's unlikely, but isn't it possible just enough to be worth it?"
I look at the bible the same way I look at the constitution of the United States. It was written in a different time, but the important parts were supposed to last for centuries. It is more important then the burocracy surrounding it, and it can be misused for selfish reasons. I the end, both are the truth behind a lot of garbage.
Of course, I could be wrong...

analog

It's a book of lessons, of morality, of doing what is right in the face of wrong. It is about being tested by evil and overcoming it, using storytelling to convey the ways and means.

Some people, unfortunately, think it's a fucking Encyclopedia and quote it/reference it in much the same way. "Well, it's in the bible, so it happened" is bullshit by the very nature of what the Bible is supposed to be: A collection of teachings, a guide, not manual, on how to live a good life in general, and also in the eyes of God.

Symbolism is used for two reasons:

1. Much of what was written at the time was written in styles like our metaphors, symbolism, etc. in english. Keep in mind these were NOT written in english, however, so "metaphor" is not a correct term, but close enough to get the point across.

2. Nearly every religion that's been around a while attributed events it could not reconcile with current knowledge to the acts of God(s) (read: greeks and romans and polytheism in general). Such as Genesis, and Adam and Eve, which are simply explanations of how we came to be. They are stories meant to convey that God put us here, it is through Him that we were created, etc... not necessarily that it took Him 7 days to make all of existence, or that we all come from only 2 people. The people who wrote the Bible had no idea about monkeys (or whatever) being linked to us in ancestry (as far as we can prove to a point).

Bottom line: It is not meant to be taken LITERALLY, but many people treat is though it were a book of facts.

asaris

You realize, don't you, that that doesn't prove that 2+2=4, since a proof must be universally valid... (And yes, I know I'm being a little silly with this.)

Analog: I agree with you to the extent that I think that much of the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally. But I think some of it is. How much? Well, while I'm here: I have serious doubts about the historicity of anything before Abraham. I guess I probably believe some of it is historically true, but I just don't really care much. I suspect that most of the rest of the history, up through I or II Kings or so, is probably based on real history (there was someone like Moses, and like Abraham, and like David), but was embellished by later traditions, etc. Jonah and Job read more like fables to me than as an attempt at a real history. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiates, Song of Songs -- well, I don't even know what it would mean to take these literally. Most of the rest of the history of the OT I would say happened, but I wouldn't be shocked if there was some embellishment. My faith doesn't exactly depend on Nehemiah actually rebuidling the walls of Jerusalem or anything like that. The problem occurs when you reason "Some of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, therefore none of it should." That argument is just as valid as its opposite "Some of the Bible should be taken literally, therefore all of it should be taken literally."

What's important, on my view, is to note the literary style of each section. Much of Genesis reads like myth to me; Kings and Chronicles read much more like a, well, chronicle of the kings of Israel/Judah. And the gospels read like eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. So we should look at them in this way; the Christian belief, that the entire Bible is inspired, means only that everything in it is in for a reason, not that everything is literally true.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

lukethebandgeek

Thanks for the replys. I'm still kind of new to the forum, and these discussions we can have really makes it worthwhile for me.

Anyways, It's the whole faith/circular logic thing. I think about this a lot, and I can think of no reason that the Bible is any better than the Bagavad Gita, or the Koran. I have read the Bible and the Bagavad Gita, and selections from the Koran, and aside from social rules and taboos, all these holy books provide information on how to become a better person.

I believe its when people get stuck on the "thou shalt not"s and the discrimination of women and homosexuals in the name of God that things get nasty.

__________________
Yes, band camp is all it's cracked up to be.

So I like Chrono... So what?

MageB420666

Many people who quote the bible just use one sentence at a time and take the sentence totally out of context. Many people who use the thou shalt not excuses are just trying to grasp some kind of support for their irrational feelings and beliefs about how things should be, such as homosexuality being a sin, what I really don't get is why incest is a sin, but God only started the human race with two people, who did their kids have sex with? And then he did it again with Noah.

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

nottwood

the Bible is an outstanding book no matter whether you believe it or not...history book, or a sacred book...its really more a collection of short accounts from the time, that years later were put together to form the Bible. Many people over many years have had a hand in the development of the version you read today called the Bible.
Inspired by God or not its a cool book...oh maybe 'cept for a commandment or two time to time.

vinmag7

i find it interesting that people will believe part of the bible but not another. i believe (and please correct me if i am wrong) that the bible calls both homosexuality and shellfish an abomination, and then says we should stone adulters. so if someone says that homosexuality is wrong because of the bible ask them why they also think we should stone adulters.

i hope this makes sense and if someone knows the verses that talk about homosexuality and the shellfish let me know.

SecretMethod70

believing something and believing it should be taken literally are two *completely* different things.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Willravel

To vinmag7: I was once a member of a church body. I was in the Lutheran Church of Missouri Synod. The official stand, at the time, on gay's was it's a big no no in God's eyes. They said that gay people could be discommunicated (makes me sick). I wrote a letter to the then President of the Church dismissing their ruling as bigotus foolishness. I mentioned that he, being a man, probably touched himself occasionally. I mentioned that he did work on Sundays. I mentioned a hell of a lot of things that he did that went completly against God's rules. I told him that excommunication for being gay will go down in history along side all the other atrocities foolish people have made in Gods name.
Now, to set the record straight (no pun intended), I am not gay. I have gay friends, but morally, I find it to be questionable. The difference between me and the church is my acceptance and willingness not to force my beliefs on people.
Yes, it is morally wrong to push your own beliefs with questionable interpretations of the bible. Yes, it's wrong to treat someone differently because of race, gender, sexual prefrence, or anything else of that nature.
BUT, I don't agree with you. You infer that people should believe all or nothing of the bible. That's very simple logic that isn't applicable in this situation. The bible doesn't lie. People misuse the word of God to supposrt pety arguments that God probably doesn't care about. I can appreciate what you are trying to say. Yes, homosexuality is probably put in the same place as shellfish (still looking for that verse) as far as the bible, but so also are murder and jelousy. Can you imagine living without killing other people? I hope so. Can you live without being jelous? Probably not. Let's just say that a lot of people misunderstand the bibles lessons about homosexuality. Remember, Jesus would regularly dine with prostatutes. His lesson was tollerance. That's what these hypocrits choose to ignore.
I'm sure if He came today, He'd be teaching the same thing, whether He supported being gay or not.

irateplatypus

while i agree with you about the problem of people taking too literal a interpretation, it's innaccurate to describe the book primarily as a book of lessons and such.

the bible, first and foremost, is meant to be a revelation of God's role as creator and sustainer of the world as revealed in his love for his people (Torah and Old Testament) as well as redeemer and savior of mankind through Christ (New Testament).

Moral lessons are part of it, but they compliment the larger message of the supremacy/sovereignty of the Father and the redemption of mankind. whether or not you buy this aspect of scripture, that was certainly the intent of its authors.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

asaris

Well, two parts. First, on homosexuality. This tends to be a very sensitive issue, so I'll start by laying my cards on the table. I believe that homosexual activity is sinful, but the 'condition of being homosexual' is not. This belief I believe to be clearly supported by scripture. However, I do not believe that it is something that can be proven outside of scripture. For this reason, I believe that civil society has an obligation to extend every right heterosexual couples have to homosexual couples. Now, vinmag7 says that both eating shellfish and homosexual activity are abominations; things condemned by God. And to a certain extent, he is right. But eating shellfish is forbidden in only a few verses of the OT, and it is a commandment that is explicitly rescinded in the NT (along with all of the other 'purity' laws). However, homosexuality is condemned throughout scripture, from Genesis into the NT. That's the difference. As far as willravel's comments go, he's way off the mark. Yes, tolerance and acceptance are central to Christianity, but so is the condemnation of sin. Christ dined with prostitutes, but he also told them to go and sin no more. So the church's role must be, in part, to not condone sinful activity. One must distinguish here between someone who slips up and is repentant, and someone who regularly and knowingly engages in sinful activity without any repentance. The one needs the forgiveness and acceptance of the Church; the other, Her stern judgement. I'm not singling out homosexual activity here. Someone who steals, commits adultery, screws poor people, etc. ought also to be subject to church discipline. But the idea that the Church should just be one large hymn sing is just screwy. The Church is a community, and it has the right to expect certain sorts of behavior from the people within that community.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Willravel

What I was saying was actually that Jesus thought it was okay to accept these people in society, despite their conditions. I made no mention of Jesus condoning their actions, because it's to be assumed that he did not accept those actions that are sins. Yes, his final goal was to help them to learn to repent for what they knew to be wrong, but he also preached to them on the same level he would preach to any other person. Please understand that this is what I meant. I was not even hinting that Jesus would accept someone and allow them to go on in a sinful lifestyle without trying to show them the will of God is to knowingly repent. My point was simply to make the point that Jesus was tollerant. H ewould not treat someone badly because they were of a different race, gender, or sexual prefrence. He did know that it was wrong to involve ones self in the act of homosexual activities (you know what I mean), but he would allow them the same opportunities as any other to repent.

toxic515

This is an interesting thread for a number of reasons. First of all, it seems to have rapidly moved to a discussion of sexuality, and away from the bible as a whole. I've done an obscene amount of research and study of the bible, the quoran, the torah, Zen and the art of motorcycle mechanics (grin) and numerous other religious texts. Something that is rather important to remember about the bible is how it came to be. You've got a book here that is edited from numerous historical texts (religious and otherwise) and put into a format that the Catholic church wanted. The text, in and of itself, is innocent, but the editing was done so long ago, that people tend to overlook the fact that it WAS done. The writings of the gnostics have been completely removed and overlooked or obscured when convenient to the Catholic goal (of that time)

We've got a book here that didn't even exist during the first few hundred years of Christianity.. Christians were nothing other than a dissident Jewish sect until Emperer Augustine moved Christianity into the mainstream in 313. At that point the "roman church" began to exert it's influence throughout the empire (save for a very brief respite during the reign of the neo-pagan ruler Julian (known as the apostate)) My point here is that it is vitally important to understand the politics of the church at the time to understand how accurate and how literally we may consider our christian bible.

It's difficult to convey the real impact of biblical politics in a brief online letter.. The entire Hebrew world was in upheaval during the time the christians were growing and forming their new religious system.. Jesus and his followrs lived at a time when the situation of the Jews was particularly turbulent and potentially explosive. The Jews had practiced traditional ways of life for centuries, and were increasingly confronted with an encroachment of pagan culture that baffled and repelled them. Forty years after the death of Jesus, Titus' forces marched on Jerusalem and annialated it almost completely. The temple, long central to the Jewish tradition was gone. Many Jews simply gave up and folowed pagan customs, whils what was left of the Pharissees struggled to salvage what was left of their ancient traditions. They hoped to reunite Jewish communities by providing a common code of law. This gave birth to the rabbinic movement. The rabbis themselves, "teachers of the law", came to replace the the hereditary caste of Jewish priests who had officiated in that temple for years.

So what? Well, the (unfortunately long-winded, and still not long enough) point here is that the entire world was in a religious, tribal, political, and sexual upheaval.. The Christian church of the time fell into a great deal of real power when Augustine ended the persecutions and adopted the religion. The church used the "holy writings" to hold and maintain power and influence in the financial, political, and spiritual world. That all continues into the current day. To a large extent the sexual attitudes, especially celibacy, were nothing more than a direct and obvious way to reject the Roman lifestyle. All of this still colors our ideas and mores even today.

As far as homosexuality is concerned, there's a great deal of dogmatic gymnastics performed out there for the sake of justifying the current church's view on the subject. Sodom and Gommorah are used as examples, but most theologins who choose that as a defense point, overlook the fact that the defiance in the face of God was the real issue, not the sexual bent. Most of the origin of current sexual mores comes from Genesis, and that's where all the ideological pretzel work really begins. Even by the time of Jesus, well over a millenium, Jews had taught that the purpose of marriage, and therefore of sexuality, as procreation. Nevermind that the Jewish communities had inherited their sexual customs from nomadic ancestors whos very survival depended upon reproduction... both among themselves and their herd animals. Prostitution, Homosexuality, abortion, infanticide, and other practices both legal and tolerated by most pagans of the time contradicted Jewish custom and law. Generations before Jesus, Jews, like many other peoples, invoked their creation myths to prove that tribal customs were not barbaric or peculiar, but part of the very structure of the universe itself.


Sorry to ramble on so long, but this bears a great deal of interest to me as an ordained minister, historian, and general pervert... (hahaha)

__________________
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies
like a banana.

asaris

I know I'm not totally innocent here, but if we're going to discuss the Bible's position on homosexuality, let's start a new thread.

So, as I pointed out earlier, there were more valid reasons to exclude the gnostic writings from the canon other than simply politics. I'm not denying political reasons were involved, though I'd like to hear why the Church wanted gnostics out so badly (Arians I can understand, but I just don't know much about early church politics). In any case, please respond to this before continuing to simply assert that the establishment of a canon was purely political.

It's true that Christianity was originally a jewish sect, but it quickly became its own thing. Two ways we can see this. First of all, it rapidly grew outside of Palestine and outside of the Jewish community, while Judaism has never really had much success in converting non-Jews to Judaism (and I don't mean to imply that they've been trying). Secondly, the persecution of Christians, as far as I know, was more widespread and general than the persecution of Jews, which, I think, was, outside of the military action that crushed Jerusalem, was more or less non-existent (to drive this home, I'm not very sure about this, so if anyone can confirm or deny it...) Christians, on the other hand, were much more generally persecuted, though perhaps not as much as you would be lead to believe from most contemporary Christians -- this was precisely because, while Judaism had a defined place in the Empire, Christianity did not; is it Jewish? Monotheistic? Tritheistic? Do they really practice cannabalism?

Regarding celibacy: It's not nearly as entrenched a practice in the RCC as one is normally lead to believe. It's canon law, which means that the church can dispense with it if they want to. Which, in the case of Eastern Rite churches, they have. That's right -- there's a whole section of the RCC that doesn't have celibate priests. It's not unreasonable to suspect that this requirement for the priesthood might be dropped in the next papacy or two.

Regarding sexual mores: So the belief that incest, homosexuality, etc., stems from the belief that the purpose, or part of the purpose, of sex is reproduction. You haven't shown that the purpose of sex isn't reproduction, or even, if the purpose of sex isn't reproduction, that these things are thereby okay. (fighting the genetic fallacy for 8 years and counting)

So to pull this all together -- even if the origins of Biblical moral teaching are not the origins it claims, that doesn't mean that its moral teaching is therefore invalid. And just because the Church may have also had political reasons to choose the books it did, that doesn't mean that it made the wrong choices.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

toxic515

I'll spend a good bit of time later on further adressing the issues you've raised, but I'd like to point out that at no time did I assert that anything was purely political. I simply wish to raise the point that MANY MANY factors, INCLUDING politics greatly affected mores and dogma. I also do not attempt to assert validity or lack thereof on the writings included in the Bible. The point is that it is important to be aware and take into consideration all of the factors that shape the ideas we are presented with today. I despise dogmatic "faith" without reason. I find it impossible to reconcile that a creator would give his people (us) only ONE real tool for survival (our minds) and then require us to NOT use it in order to reap some eternal reward.. Therefore, to my way of thinking, everything MUST be reasonable. In some cases that means that I have to acknowledge that I may not have all of the information.

You are correct in the statement that the moral teaching is not necessarily invalid, and that the churches choice of books to include are not NECESSARILY incorrect. My admonishment is to refuse to simply accept that it IS correct without searching.

I thought that I was very clear that christianity STARTED as a Jewish sect. (and while it's expansion wasn't quite as rapid as some think it was, they certainly DID spend a lot more time attempting to convert than the Jews did) Celibacy is another issue entirely, much of that brought up because Jesus more or less told the people to ignore everyday responsibilities and activities and focus on the kingdom of God... It was a rather short hop, instead of a leap to fit sexual absinance into that as well. The establishment of the Roman church's canon was not PURELY political. There is little question that they were scholarly, and were attempting to do right by what they understood and believed, just as we all try to do today. Priestly celibacy always seemed more of an economical decision rather than anything else as far as the church was concerned..

and the Gnostics... well, that's certainly another thread, but the short version of the story is here is that they had some radically different ideas about the metaphysics of the universe than the Romans (Catholics) did, and their interpretation of Genesis alone was a radical departure from that belief system. The writings of James (Jesus brother) frightened them to no end. (and you'll notice that they're not in the bible nor are they openly discussed...) More later, I'm tired and I wanna go to bed. ;-) Thanks for the opportunity to continue to discuss.. :-)

__________________
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies
like a banana.

analog

Yes. Very much so, yes.

I was really just trying to keep my explanation simple, while conveying the main overall point that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. In doing so, I (foolishly and regrettably) took a shortcut to a small, crude explantion for what is a really complex and beautiful thing.

You have corrected my short answer for me, thank you very much.

asaris: I believe that in the form the Bible was created, it is not a collection of works to be taken literally. Historical accuracy and literal meaning are, in this case, not mutually exclusive of each other.

Did Adam and Eve really exist? That's not the point of the book- humans exist, and there is a story to explain God's involvement in and devotion to our creation, His love for us, etc. That's the real point i'm making. You can convey things that actually, really happened in a way that is not a literal representation, but an easily transferred notion of it. Imagine if the bible were a literal work in any way- Genesis would be physics equations on how to explode stars into universes, and chemistry problems on how to bake up our primordial ooze. Try explaining that to average Joe, circa ANYTHING B.C. Hell, try it now. I hate chemistry.

Very much agreed.

analog

Willravel

Okay, is the bible a valid source. It depends on what kind of a source you are looking for and for what. If you are looking for a source of information about Christianity, this is your book. If you want a good source of morals, I'd say go for it. You said, "When peopl are defending their faith." This hints at the fact that you may be playing devils advocate or cynic against them. Some quotes from the bible are meant to be taken litterally, and some arn't. It is up to each person to decide what he or she believes. So, in going with that, having discussions about the validity of certian versus and their meanings is like arguing over an opinnion. I don't think therre are wrong opinnions, maybe missinformed ones, but nothing concretely wrong. As far as logic goes, yes, it is completly illogical to believe in something just on faith alone or that has circularly been passed down without explaination. However, most of religion is based on faith. It bothers you to think of the bible as an infalable source. Okay, that's good. What do you think is open to falibility and why? You need to explore what you believe and find a basis of your faith. Then you should build from there.

flightlessbird

Disclaimer: I did not read the rest of this thread, I was just interested in the 2+2=4
I am also not sure this is correct, please point out any errors that you see.

To prove that 2+2=4 you first need integers, enter set theory.
Lets start with nothing, the empty set { e }.
Now we have something, the empty set {e}
Now we have two things, the empty set and nothing { e , { e } }
This goes on and on forever, giving us all of the positive integers.
From this we can conclude that {e,{e}} + {e,{e}} = {e, {e} , {e,{e}}, {e,{e},{e,{e}}} }
If you count the empty sets you get two empty sets + two empty sets = four empty sets.

That is how my Theory of Computation teacher explained it. I assume that M&Ms are a easier to grasp than empty sets are, but you get the picture.

I don't know which side this helps, but the point is that 2+2=4 can be proved.

duck0987

I think the best way to sum it up is that the bible is like a salad bar, take from it what you want and leave the rest. On some ideas it is a great moral compass, on others it is tainted with superstition, metaphor, and hatred. The bible is man's interpretation of the word of God as they see it and nothing more. The authors that combined what we call the bible today are just as fallible as the Pope today.

__________________
"I've got a lot of friends who don't know how to cook, which I could never understand because not knowing how to cook is like not knowing how to fuck." --Robert Rodriguez

irateplatypus

if you're agnostic or atheistic... i think the bible should probably still hold a great deal of legitimacy. like analog hinted at earlier (thx for the clarification by the way analog, i know it's pretty hard to cover all your bases on an online post... but you were gracious concerning my response.) the bible does contain a large volume of ancient wisdom and knowledge. though the style may be different, many of the contributors to the corpus of biblical scripture were the intellectual and philosophical leaders of their ages. to quote the bible in many places is to quote the kant's, neitzsches's, kirkagaard's and freud's of that ancient era. if you don't buy into the text as a revelation of God... there are millenia of philosophical and moral expertise compiled in the bible to learn from. that is why i think the bible should be a valid source for everyone... though they may not approach it in the same way i do.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

roachboy

you have to keep in mind something that has already been raised but merits repeating that the status accorded the bible is a strict function of belief (your relationship to a religion/religious cultural space)--if you do not work from within a space that accords a specific position to the text, its status floats about. for me, the bible is interesting only as a text that others refer to, recycle, reprocess...you have to know it to know what the moves are, what the jokes are.

if i was interested in understanding (pace dilthey) how, say, pentecostal chrisitianity (still the fast-growing social movement in the soouthern hemisphere) generated effects on, say, politics, then the role of particular ways of reading the bible might be important analytically.

the short version: the bible is only an interesting source if the community you are either part of or looking at understands it as such. it has no more transcendent value than that.

as for the claim that the writers were among the leading thinkers of the age in which they were writing--i have no idea how you would even start to demonstrate that claim--except one--which would require that you relativize how importance is accorded to particular bodies of thought, not on the basis of content, but on the basis of the activities of particular social networks of critics/academics/writers who occupy particular status positions in a given cultural field. for an example of what i am talking about, you could read some recent work on the legacy of j.s. bach, for example, which pushes to the center how 19th century critics revised the understanding of his work in a direction of composition and away from improvisation as a function of the shifts in how music production was understood. reputations of figures from the past are more reflections of particular power relations in the present of the critic than of the meaning of the figure from the past.

i do not see anything in the gospels that is anywhere near as developed as what you find in plotinus, for example, if you want to play the rate-your-favorite-neoplatonist game. but plotinus was not christian, so he tends to get pushed to the side in canon-formation (the list of legitimate texts, the main space for the exercize of cultural power).....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

TheKak

Why do I not think the Bible is legitimate? Well first lets look at the authors, focusing mostly on the New Testament since that seems to be what most people focus on these days (though many still quote from the Old, but they always seem to leave out the animal sacrificies and stones, hrm).

Who wrote the Gospels? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Think again! No one actually knows who wrote the 4 gospels that made it into the Bible. Note that MANY other gospels were written, but only 4 were chosen by Irenaeus of Lyon. Many of these other gospels (and their writers) were burned as heretics.

A close look at the gospels reveals much as well. Although Mark comes after Matthew in the Bible, it has been shown that Mark was written first (sometime after 70 C.E), and that common elements from Mark are present in both Matthew and Luke. Out of Mark's 666, 600 verses appear in Matthew, and 300 in Luke.

That is just barly scratching the surface of why there is plenty of reason to think the Bible as untrustworthy.

Please note that I got much of my referencing from Nobeliefs , and you can read more arguments agaisnt the Bible (and beliefs in general) there.

As for the Bible being a good book to get morals from, I leave you with a few of my favorite Bible quotes!

Kill them, their kids and rape their wives? Sounds like a plan to me!

Thats to say if you are a man and you get your junk wounded or acidentally cut off, or if you are born a bastard (ie no father), than you are not allowed to step foot into the Church! Great moral code.

Here is Jesus flipping out and using a scourge to whip people out of a temple. A great rolemodel, if you want your children to grow up violent. Hitler even mentioned this verse in one of his speeches.

These are just a few quotes, and there are MANY more that show that the Bible is not the nice peaceful book that many people proclaim it is. I agree its a good book, but so are Stephen King's books, and for many of the same reasons.

__________________
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

irateplatypus

thekak,

would you feel the bible to be more legitimate if there weren't 3 synoptic gospels that pulled from a similar (if not a single) source? i have a feeling we'd be debating that the gospels could never be true because they don't bear a resemblance to one another.

i love how people (not necessarily singling you out thekak though i am referencing your post) screams "CONTEXT, WE MUST HAVE CONTEXT!" when interpreting the meaning and significance of scripture (a principle i strongly agree with by the way), yet base refutations on 3 scattered verses.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

asaris

I'll start with a brief comment on 2+2, since that's not really on topic. Flightlessbird very nicely proves that 2+2=4. Wonderful; just to note, I'm well aware of that proof. My point was that people don't learn that proof well into their lives, if ever, while most people 'know' that 2+2=4. How do they know? Their math teacher told them.

Now, toxic writes:
I somewhat agree with you on this, to this extent: God gave us minds, yes, and expects us to use them. What this means for me is that I'm very unwilling to consider something a 'mystery'. I don't think, on the other hand, every Christian, or even every Christian philosopher, needs to have a well developed explanation of the incarnation, or providence, or the trinity. (I'm indebted to Alasdair MacIntyre for this point.) And I don't think that the fact that God gave us reason means that we'll ever be able to figure everything out. Kant and Kierkegaard are good for meditating on this (not to mention Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx.) Reason can lead us to the point where it fails, but for fairly obvious reasons, it cannot take us any further. He continues talking about sexual abstinence and the gnostics, which I'll ignore for now.

Irate Platypus comments:
, which is disputed by roachboy. It's difficult to say that Paul is anywhere near the philosopher Plato or Aristotle was. He might have a better shot against Plotinus or Marcus Aurelius, but that's not an argument I would want to make. The argument I do want to make is that, even if the philosophy underlying the NT is not particularly well developed there, its influence on human affairs and mores is greater than just about any piece of philosophy ever written (Marx is a possible exception, but I can't think of any others that compare). So for this reason alone, it deserves to be read, to be part of the 'canon' (if you'll pardon the pun) as much as Plato or Descartes. Intellectual and philosophical leaders? Don't know about that. But certainly these were people who had something to say, and who considered themselves part of the tradition started by Abraham/Moses/whoever.

And while I'm speaking of traditions, let me comment on Duck's post. He says we should treat the Bible as a salad bar, taking whatever suits our taste. The problem is that our taste is often wrong. If we are merely to survey the world's religions and philosophers, taking what we like and ignoring what we do, we are guilty of intellectual arrogance at the very least. I'm willing to say that no truly great person has not been part of some tradition or another.

Whether this is the Christian tradition, as in the cases of Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa, or the Hindu tradition, as Gandhi, they were part of a
tradition. Trying to cut oneself off from all traditions only results in one being all the more firmly tied to a tradition, because one is unaware of it. I'm not advocating blind adherence to a tradition here. I'm saying that once one is in a tradition, one is in a place where one can criticize that tradition. But if one is outside a tradition, one does not have a rock to stand on to criticize anything.

Several points in response to TheKak:
First of all, the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar is only to be expected; they are, after all, describing the same life. It's unclear why you think this should be a reason that they are untrustworthy. Secondly, I'm pretty sure Mark is usually dated in the late 60s CE at the latest, but I'll let someone who knows more about this than I do confirm or deny it. As far as it having been shown that Mark was written first, well, this hasn't really been shown. It's the most common theory right now among textual critics, but of course it's hard to prove such a thing. I've heard that some respected scholars believe that Matthew was written first. Regarding your Bible quotes; yeah, so what? The Bible isn't a peaceful book. Things like evil deserve to
be treated harshly. The 60s version of peace and love is for a bunch of peaceniks without a backbone! The world is a bad place, and sometimes violence is necessary to defeat injustice.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

tecoyah

I am truly amazed that this severely reinterpreted book, in all the versions now availible, can be considered as truth. From any logical standpoint, when something is changed or rewritten, by a human hand, there will be mistakes. When we go into the extent to which these writtings have been manipulated by those that have taken upon themselves the interpretation, there can really be no doubt that what you read today, is not what was written 2,000 Yrs. ago.
Yet many still consider this to be "The Word" of God. I personally find this to be a sign of ignorance (no insult intended) or a failure to use logical thought. While I am well aware of the Have Faith mentality, that has not worked for me since catholic school. I have read several versions of the Bible, and there is much to be learned from these texts, but if they are the word of a God.....I will look elsewhere for my salvation.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

irateplatypus

when i talk about the philosophical leaders of their age... i am almost exclusively referring to old testament books such as proverbs, psalms, job, isaiah and the like. the new testament was primarily written in a very familiar and parochial type of greek that certainly isn't the cream of the crop in a scholarly way (in style and presentation). the only new testament books that could be included imho are romans, hebrews, and possibly revelation.

should've made that discount upfront, thanks all for pointing that out.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

roachboy

problem is, irate, that if you travel backward in time it becomes even more difficult to do anything with your claim--back it up, think about it in relative terms--the idea of "their age" doesnt mean anything analytically--unless you are referencing hegel. in which case there are all kinds of other problems.

it is better to think in terms of ex post facto influence. it does not really matter if the writers of ot/nt texts were minor intellectuals writing from a social backwater in historical terms--what would matter is the influence their texts have subsequently had---for particular communities (not universally, not in any cosmic sense--history is always particular, like it or not) in which case, you loop back into ways of thinking that i tired to talk about (in which i was echoing stuff that had been said before here in slightly different terms)--the texts are only a "valid source" if you are looking at how they operate/influence particular communities at particular times.
or if you are yourself part of such a community and you are trying to explain something of your own beliefs.
apart from that, the bible is just another collection of novellas [an anachronistic term used here for argument's sake] which frame their fictions with a particular kind of truth claim.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

irateplatypus

but what other measure could we use? it's no good arguing that the standing of some philosophers has a separate sort of legitimacy that cannot be accorded to others. you must take king solomon in his context just as you would take lao tzu or protagoras in his.

king solomon may not have much relevance today in your philosophical studies but the same could be said for Socrates in the studies of a person in China. influence and legitimacy through the ages is tied to circular patterns, i'll wholeheartedly agree with you there, but you must not conclude that the philosophy of the old testament or any other religious source is less circular than other branches of thought.

i think it's important to make a distinction between philosophy of religion/politics/metaphysics etc. and philosophy of science. we can both agree that the starting points for the philosophy of science is different than the other variety as it has no real starting assumptions. this is in contrast with the main body of philosophical thought as most of it is built on fundamental premises that cannot be proven either way (i.e. we have/don't have souls, there is/is not a god, we exist/we do not exist.)

if you're going to discount religious philosophy as circular then you must also discount the bulk of philosophy on the same grounds. of course, i do not discount all philosophy that does not have empirically provable evidence... which allows me to logically place legitimacy on religious texts from a philosophical perspective.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

asaris

I say this again (and this applies to both the Old and New Testaments):
1. The extant manuscripts we have are very, very old. I don't remember the exact dates anymore, but they are much closer to the original than the extant manuscripts of just about any other ancient text.

2. We used to only have more recent manuscripts. When we compare the older manuscripts with the more recent (Masoretic and Septuagint, for example), there are few differences, very few of which are actually differences in meaning, and almost none of which are important differences in meaning.

You have to realize, Tecoyah, that these people doing the transcribing were transcribing what they believed to be the word of God. (The Word of God is someone else entirely). So they were very, very careful. Furthermore, it requires a very cynical mind, which violates the most basic principle of interpretation, to think that they would have changed the words of God to suit their own purposes. Which is why there are so few differences between different manuscripts.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

:::OshnSoul:::

The word of God can't be spoken or taught- only felt and experienced. While I respect all religions and even grew up a Christian, it seems very falsified in areas and a book being insignificant to what God/life really is.....

sloppyjoeska

Hi, I just stumbled across this forum cause the topic caught my eye. I wrote a rant on this sorta thing if ya wanna check it out. http://www.sigd.net/~jarquet/pg1/opi...youpeople.html

sloppyjoeska

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
--Galileo Galilei

TheKak

First, to irateplatypus:

You cannot take some and leave the rest when considering a religious text, unless you would not follow the religion as "the Hand of God wrote it". I used 3 scattered examples because to list them all would take up far more space than I am prepared to use on a message board.

And asaris:

And by evil you mean women, bastards, people who piss on walls, people who have their genitalia injured, gays, and anyone who has sex outside of marriage (including raped women)? Yes those are evil evil people and they should all be killed according to the Bible. What you said is how the Bible gets used as justification for murder and wars. Hitler himself often quoted from the Bible, because he was a devoute Christian and based many of his violent acts on the Bible. But the people he killed were "evil" according to the Bible, so that makes what he did ok since we need to use violence to defeat the injustice that those faggots and adulterers bring upon this great Crhstian land. You need to go hang out with Pat Robertson.

__________________
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

irateplatypus

taking things in context isn't the same as taking some and leaving others. the case for a text as complex as the Bible to be either this way or that cannot be made with 3 referrenced verses. if the argument requires more effort to display, then i suggest that you either make the effort to state your case in its entirety or not expect that it be taken seriously in a forum such as this. not trying to be snobbish. i hope that sounds like a reasonable request.

hitler was a devout christian? quoting scriptures and using biblical references to manipulate a traditionally christian populace does not a devout christian make. let's not get silly here.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill