The jesus story isn't original
Replies
-
Why is it that believers like to throw out the 'You're not reading it in context' argument when it's a part of the Bible that comes across as horrendous, but when it's something that supports their opinion then suddenly the way the passage is written doesn't need to be twisted to fit a 'context' ??
There's a Youtube video detailing exactly this. No one ever brings up "context" when Jesus said "Love thy neighbor." That one stands on it's own. But you point out something else and it's "Nooo that was ok for the TIME! Back then God didn't mind if people were enslaved. He's against it now though. Even if he never said anything about when or why he changed his mind. But God doesn't change! I mean...um...."
To watch it just look up videos by NonStamp Collector. He's got a few I love, especially the "Modern Christian interprets the word of Jesus" one. I'd link to it but work blocks Youtube...0 -
Why is it that believers like to throw out the 'You're not reading it in context' argument when it's a part of the Bible that comes across as horrendous, but when it's something that supports their opinion then suddenly the way the passage is written doesn't need to be twisted to fit a 'context' ??
There's a Youtube video detailing exactly this. No one ever brings up "context" when Jesus said "Love thy neighbor." That one stands on it's own. But you point out something else and it's "Nooo that was ok for the TIME! Back then God didn't mind if people were enslaved. He's against it now though. Even if he never said anything about when or why he changed his mind. But God doesn't change! I mean...um...."
To watch it just look up videos by NonStamp Collector. He's got a few I love, especially the "Modern Christian interprets the word of Jesus" one. I'd link to it but work blocks Youtube...
Then couldn't Christians finally come to terms with the fact that maybe the parts of the bible they claim are anti-gay just maybe might be okay for the TIME, but not okay now? LOL. I always thought that if there were parts of the bible that truly are against homosexuals, maybe it was simply to ensure the continued growth of the human race. I'm guessing back in that time, there probably weren't too many people living so if people were gay, no more babies=no growth of the human race. Now that doesn't apply so much.0 -
Why is it that believers like to throw out the 'You're not reading it in context' argument when it's a part of the Bible that comes across as horrendous, but when it's something that supports their opinion then suddenly the way the passage is written doesn't need to be twisted to fit a 'context' ??
There's a Youtube video detailing exactly this. No one ever brings up "context" when Jesus said "Love thy neighbor." That one stands on it's own. But you point out something else and it's "Nooo that was ok for the TIME! Back then God didn't mind if people were enslaved. He's against it now though. Even if he never said anything about when or why he changed his mind. But God doesn't change! I mean...um...."
To watch it just look up videos by NonStamp Collector. He's got a few I love, especially the "Modern Christian interprets the word of Jesus" one. I'd link to it but work blocks Youtube...
Then couldn't Christians finally come to terms with the fact that maybe the parts of the bible they claim are anti-gay just maybe might be okay for the TIME, but not okay now? LOL. I always thought that if there were parts of the bible that truly are against homosexuals, maybe it was simply to ensure the continued growth of the human race. I'm guessing back in that time, there probably weren't too many people living so if people were gay, no more babies=no growth of the human race. Now that doesn't apply so much.
And this is where I get a little mystified as well. If you are going to take the time out of your day to tell me when and where to put my penis, then maybe things like racism, sexism, bigotry, abortion, and a thousand other things could have been addressed as well. Just sort of funny that the creator of the universe, the stars, suns, galaxies, planets and nebulas decided that it was important to tell people in one of the most backwards places in the middle east to quit touching themselves. It's good prioritizing.0 -
Why is it that believers like to throw out the 'You're not reading it in context' argument when it's a part of the Bible that comes across as horrendous, but when it's something that supports their opinion then suddenly the way the passage is written doesn't need to be twisted to fit a 'context' ??
There's a Youtube video detailing exactly this. No one ever brings up "context" when Jesus said "Love thy neighbor." That one stands on it's own. But you point out something else and it's "Nooo that was ok for the TIME! Back then God didn't mind if people were enslaved. He's against it now though. Even if he never said anything about when or why he changed his mind. But God doesn't change! I mean...um...."
To watch it just look up videos by NonStamp Collector. He's got a few I love, especially the "Modern Christian interprets the word of Jesus" one. I'd link to it but work blocks Youtube...
Then couldn't Christians finally come to terms with the fact that maybe the parts of the bible they claim are anti-gay just maybe might be okay for the TIME, but not okay now? LOL. I always thought that if there were parts of the bible that truly are against homosexuals, maybe it was simply to ensure the continued growth of the human race. I'm guessing back in that time, there probably weren't too many people living so if people were gay, no more babies=no growth of the human race. Now that doesn't apply so much.
And this is where I get a little mystified as well. If you are going to take the time out of your day to tell me when and where to put my penis, then maybe things like racism, sexism, bigotry, abortion, and a thousand other things could have been addressed as well. Just sort of funny that the creator of the universe, the stars, suns, galaxies, planets and nebulas decided that it was important to tell people in one of the most backwards places in the middle east to quit touching themselves. It's good prioritizing.
Well racism, sexism and bigotry were addressed in that God was okay with all three.0 -
Then couldn't Christians finally come to terms with the fact that maybe the parts of the bible they claim are anti-gay just maybe might be okay for the TIME, but not okay now? LOL. I always thought that if there were parts of the bible that truly are against homosexuals, maybe it was simply to ensure the continued growth of the human race. I'm guessing back in that time, there probably weren't too many people living so if people were gay, no more babies=no growth of the human race. Now that doesn't apply so much.
You'd think. But it doesn't seem to be happening that way, now does it? To be fair not all Christians or denominations are against homosexuality, it wouldn't be fair to say they ALL were. But it's not some small minority who are opposed. There's rather a concerted effort by many religious organizations to discriminate against homosexuals. It's undeniable.
They're wrong and once again some day in the future they will be regarded poorly for their actions. As has happened so many times before. The youth of today are not opposed to homosexuality. They aren't afraid of what the scary gay men are going to do to them. They have the sense to realize they are people just like anyone else and just want the same freedoms we all enjoy.
Many churches oppose this. As they opposed the abolition of slavery, the theory of evolution and the idea that the Earth travels around the sun. History will show them to be wrong once again. I have no doubt of that.0 -
The "translation" of virgin is assumptive. Again if it were important than "bethulah" would have been used as to not confuse the actual prophecy.
And if you believe the genesis story, then there's probably no logical explanation you would accept.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Assume that I do not believe Genesis (I do have a biology heavy degree), and then, logically, explain to me why (other than as a 'sign') a deity must be born of a virgin to be a man-god? And, if it was a sign, why are we not then contextually obligated to assume that the prophecy means "virgin." Ambiguous language or not.0 -
Well I am.
I don't think humanity has a disease and I find the claim to be sickening. Not taking issue withg you personally David, it's a claim made by believers all the time. What you are saying is that we are in essence "born sick and commanded upon pain of endless torture to be well." I take great umbrage at the very idea. If that is the reality of our existence, that we were created imperfect by a perfect being who will then punish us for those imperfections, well I place the blame at his feet. And I say he's far from perfect, he's a child playing a sick game with human lives. I want no part of it.
And if he is love he sure has a funny way of showing it. Punishing me eternally for not worshipping him because it makes no sense using the brain he gave me. Expecting wholehearted belief while refusing to provide any reliable evidence. This is not the behavior of an omnipotent being who cares for his creation. It's the behavior of a mad celestial dictator. I do not believe in the existence of such a thing but even if I were proven to be wrong I would tell this God of yours that to his face.
Well, frankly, you are the sort of atheist that I prefer. That is, some have become so sissified that they go scurrying to a lawyer at the first sign of a sillicon baby Jesus somewhere that they feel he ought not be. The kind that is willing to take the fight straight to God, though, is usually more durable than that. More power to you.0 -
The "translation" of virgin is assumptive. Again if it were important than "bethulah" would have been used as to not confuse the actual prophecy.
And if you believe the genesis story, then there's probably no logical explanation you would accept.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Assume that I do not believe Genesis (I do have a biology heavy degree), and then, logically, explain to me why (other than as a 'sign') a deity must be born of a virgin to be a man-god? And, if it was a sign, why are we not then contextually obligated to assume that the prophecy means "virgin." Ambiguous language or not.
What if she really was a virgin as suggested. Would it validate him as the son of the one God and his teachings, especially in light of the fact that Horus, Dionysus, Ghengis Khan, and a slew of others also were claimed by their followers to be born of virgins?0 -
David thanks for the kind words.
The entire virgin birth story is nothing more than primitive fears and icky feelings about sex. Nothing about it makes someone divine.
Asexual reproduction is not uncommon. Even in multi-celled organisms. Hammerhead sharks can reproduce in conditions where there is not a single male to impregnate them. Are these offspring divine? Should we follow the teachings of these sharks?
This is why even if it were true it proves nothing to me. There's still a very long way to go between "I was born without any male sperm involved" and "I am the son of the creator of the universe." Even if you prove the first you haven't proven the second.0 -
Yes, but I cannot get past the part where if I turn down your gods perfect love, I burn in hell for eternity. The addition of this veiled threat, or the reward of heaven doesn't speak of aquiring love, it smacks with blind obedience. But I guess this is the fundamental problem I have with the abrahamic religions, the disease you mentioned, was knowledge of good and evil. I cannot get behind a religion that thinks that the original sin of all mankind, passed down to the innocent by their ancestors (evil) is seeking knowledge. Besides, the story is ridiculous in nature to begin with.
Indeed, the problems of both Hell and evil are dogged ones, and will not be settled to anyone's satisfaction anytime soon. Suffice it to say, from my perspective, that the problem of evil is satisfied in a Molinistic view of freedom and God's omniscience (which is likely not of enough interest to you to go into here), and that my view of 'hell' is simply persons, still living eternally, that are rather less fond of being bathed in the presence of God. Frankly, all the places that hold the truly evil (satan) are destroyed in Revelation, and every place left are supposed to be filled with the Holy Spirit. So where is this Hell everyone keeps talking about? Nowhere. The so called lake of fire is just the presence of God to those that do not want it.
No, I agree that taking it in the most strictly literal sense, it tends to come across rather as a mishmash of nonsense. I am not a strict literalist, and find that somewhere in it all is a story of innocence, disobediance, a struggle for control, and future redemption. To argue against the literal story would be arguing against a position I don't hold.The most powerful creator in the whole universe puts two people in a garden that just happens to have a demonic serpent in it? And why even put that tree in the garden to temp mankind. But then again, how could Gods perfect man and woman disobey the lord when they themselves have know knowledge and are incapable of sinning yet? Seems to me that God's first commandment, don't eat from this tree, was violated rather quickly to a being he had just made in his perfect image. Strange. I could go on forever with this stuff, but it is pointless.
Using theism, I can claim that there is an objective morality of perfect love, for which and by which the entire universe was woven. Even if everything in the bible is dead wrong, I can still claim this, using the idea of both cosmological and moral arguments for a creator. Using darwinism, sociobiology, and particularly materialism, the most I (note the I, not you) can claim is that morality developed as a means of supporting the gene pool, and that is activates a particular, hopefully pleasurable, physical reaction in us to help another. From there, it developed along anthropological lines per whatever supported the community, or particular interests of those who had the power to enforce it. No system can be judged more or less right (with no objective measure to determine this), just more or less egalitarian, libertarian, etc. This is how I see the data. As to what Jesus claimed, I would not place it first chronologically, He just said it with ultimate authority. Authority in a claim matters, does it not?What isn't pointless is the fact that there is a false assumption that Jesus was the first to tell people to be good to eachother. That is just wrong. Plenty of other religions have made the same case, and similar laws. As I have stated earlier, all you have to do is look at the words of the abrahamic God, the lack of details, the lack of important rules and how cultures and civilizations have prospered without them, or see how Christian societies have deemed things morally reprehensible not based on what is said in the bible, but with an evolving morality developed with empathy and intelligence.0 -
The "translation" of virgin is assumptive. Again if it were important than "bethulah" would have been used as to not confuse the actual prophecy.
And if you believe the genesis story, then there's probably no logical explanation you would accept.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Assume that I do not believe Genesis (I do have a biology heavy degree), and then, logically, explain to me why (other than as a 'sign') a deity must be born of a virgin to be a man-god? And, if it was a sign, why are we not then contextually obligated to assume that the prophecy means "virgin." Ambiguous language or not.
What if she really was a virgin as suggested. Would it validate him as the son of the one God and his teachings, especially in light of the fact that Horus, Dionysus, Ghengis Khan, and a slew of others also were claimed by their followers to be born of virgins?
Not at all. That is specifically my claim. The virgin birth supports certain doctrinal notions of later theology, and was part of satisfying a certain prophecy, but His status as God was cemented by His demonstrations of miracles, the transfiguration, etc.0 -
David thanks for the kind words.
The entire virgin birth story is nothing more than primitive fears and icky feelings about sex. Nothing about it makes someone divine.
Asexual reproduction is not uncommon. Even in multi-celled organisms. Hammerhead sharks can reproduce in conditions where there is not a single male to impregnate them. Are these offspring divine? Should we follow the teachings of these sharks?
This is why even if it were true it proves nothing to me. There's still a very long way to go between "I was born without any male sperm involved" and "I am the son of the creator of the universe." Even if you prove the first you haven't proven the second.
Hey, I agree.0 -
Why is it that believers like to throw out the 'You're not reading it in context' argument when it's a part of the Bible that comes across as horrendous, but when it's something that supports their opinion then suddenly the way the passage is written doesn't need to be twisted to fit a 'context' ??
In appropriate hermaneutics, eisegesis (reading what you want into the script) is always wrong, exigesis (the struggle to find its actual meaning) is always right. It is wrong to cherry pick for fundamentalists, liberals, atheists, etc. Communication and relationship is best served is we all work at our very best to understand one another, and our the various sources of our beliefs.0 -
Why is it that believers like to throw out the 'You're not reading it in context' argument when it's a part of the Bible that comes across as horrendous, but when it's something that supports their opinion then suddenly the way the passage is written doesn't need to be twisted to fit a 'context' ??
In appropriate hermaneutics, eisegesis (reading what you want into the script) is always wrong, exigesis (the struggle to find its actual meaning) is always right. It is wrong to cherry pick for fundamentalists, liberals, atheists, etc. Communication and relationship is best served is we all work at our very best to understand one another, and our the various sources of our beliefs.
It's very easy for believers (and non-believers alike) to read however they want to in what is written and state that they know exactly what 'god' meant by it. Besides, if the people of today's society still can't get the context right in terms of what was written, how are we to expect that goat herders from 2,000+ years ago to understand what they were writing down that supposedly was 'from god' ?0 -
It is easy, but that is why it is eisegesis, and good exigesis is a struggle. Part of what you are talking about is why there was a protestant reformation, why there is a Catholic magisterium, why there is a Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy, and on and on. To explain my particular molinist bent on how Scipture was written would be tiresome, but I believe that certain men were guided to great understanding, to illuminate the people of their time. There is still truth to be had from that illumination, and some of it has to be flexible enough to apply to this time.
It's very easy for believers (and non-believers alike) to read however they want to in what is written and state that they know exactly what 'god' meant by it. Besides, if the people of today's society still can't get the context right in terms of what was written, how are we to expect that goat herders from 2,000+ years ago to understand what they were writing down that supposedly was 'from god' ?0 -
I don't mean to be argumentative, or accusatory, but you (and a few others here) have repeatedly implied that a theist would be incapable of logic or understanding logic, or just can't see how fooled and deluded they are, etc. That is, it is clear that a large number of atheists feel that they are either smarter, or just more able then we. Perhaps even more sane. Is it not a bit of hypocrisy to complain of sense of moral superiority, if you hold a sense of logical or intellectual superiority? Are we not just, then, unconstructively tossing rocks back and forth at that point? While it is only natural to feel that ones position is correct, I find it pointless if one holds to such strong baises against the abilities of those who hold alternate points that one can never be dissuaded. While it would be tough to convince me that God is not real, I certainly open to moral or ethical correction from a non-believer. Are you, or any other atheists here, as open to the notion that their materialist biases in logic are flawed?
Patti can you honestly say that you don't feel "sorry" for non believers? Your belief is that we are missing out, so though you may not say it, in your head and mind you feel you're one up on us. Again, that doesn't mean you're not a good person, discriminating, etc. but there is a feeling of superiority because of your faith over those who are non believers. And it's not just you. All religions are this way which is why there is so much argumentation about who's god is the real god.Not all Christians feel they are "better" than anyone. Just as not all white people feel they are "better" than black people. You'll have those ignorant ones who think that way, but not all of us. I certainly do not think I'm any better a human being than you are just because I'm Christian and you are not. I hope that nothing I've ever typed made you feel that way. If it has, then I apologize.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I don't mean to be argumentative, or accusatory, but you (and a few others here) have repeatedly implied that a theist would be incapable of logic or understanding logic, or just can't see how fooled and deluded they are, etc. That is, it is clear that a large number of atheists feel that they are either smarter, or just more able then we. Perhaps even more sane. Is it not a bit of hypocrisy to complain of sense of moral superiority, if you hold a sense of logical or intellectual superiority? Are we not just, then, unconstructively tossing rocks back and forth at that point? While it is only natural to feel that ones position is correct, I find it pointless if one holds to such strong baises against the abilities of those who hold alternate points that one can never be dissuaded. While it would be tough to convince me that God is not real, I certainly open to moral or ethical correction from a non-believer. Are you, or any other atheists here, as open to the notion that their materialist biases in logic are flawed?
Patti can you honestly say that you don't feel "sorry" for non believers? Your belief is that we are missing out, so though you may not say it, in your head and mind you feel you're one up on us. Again, that doesn't mean you're not a good person, discriminating, etc. but there is a feeling of superiority because of your faith over those who are non believers. And it's not just you. All religions are this way which is why there is so much argumentation about who's god is the real god.Not all Christians feel they are "better" than anyone. Just as not all white people feel they are "better" than black people. You'll have those ignorant ones who think that way, but not all of us. I certainly do not think I'm any better a human being than you are just because I'm Christian and you are not. I hope that nothing I've ever typed made you feel that way. If it has, then I apologize.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think that all atheists present in this debate have made their positions on morality very clear, and I haven't yet heard any claims of intellectual superiority or moral superiority as a whole. But once an issue had been debated and it is clear where everyone stands or when people refuse to state certain beliefs, I think it valid to have an opinion on those beliefs as wrong or right in our opinions. Obviously there are both geniuses and people of outstanding character in all religions and of no religions. But I do believe that a strong un-yielding belief in the supernatural is more wishful thinking than the use of logic. I'm sure everyone would love to see their loved ones again after death, but appeal doesn't make it true. And what I have seen in these debates isn't in bend that the bible was in fact man made and fallible, but instead people so intent on their beliefs they have spent a life time finding ways to justify and explain the immoral.0 -
I think that all atheists present in this debate have made their positions on morality very clear, and I haven't yet heard any claims of intellectual superiority or moral superiority as a whole. But once an issue had been debated and it is clear where everyone stands or when people refuse to state certain beliefs, I think it valid to have an opinion on those beliefs as wrong or right in our opinions. Obviously there are both geniuses and people of outstanding character in all religions and of no religions. But I do believe that a strong un-yielding belief in the supernatural is more wishful thinking than the use of logic. I'm sure everyone would love to see their loved ones again after death, but appeal doesn't make it true. And what I have seen in these debates isn't in bend that the bible was in fact man made and fallible, but instead people so intent on their beliefs they have spent a life time finding ways to justify and explain the immoral.
An opinion is fine, I think, Even a strengthened opinion. But I believe I was told, explicitly, that if I believed the Genesis story, then I would accept no logical explanation. Apparently for anything, as we were not talking about Genesis. Does that not sound a bit dismissive of the intellectual abilities of, well, just about every Christian?0 -
I think that all atheists present in this debate have made their positions on morality very clear, and I haven't yet heard any claims of intellectual superiority or moral superiority as a whole. But once an issue had been debated and it is clear where everyone stands or when people refuse to state certain beliefs, I think it valid to have an opinion on those beliefs as wrong or right in our opinions. Obviously there are both geniuses and people of outstanding character in all religions and of no religions. But I do believe that a strong un-yielding belief in the supernatural is more wishful thinking than the use of logic. I'm sure everyone would love to see their loved ones again after death, but appeal doesn't make it true. And what I have seen in these debates isn't in bend that the bible was in fact man made and fallible, but instead people so intent on their beliefs they have spent a life time finding ways to justify and explain the immoral.
An opinion is fine, I think, Even a strengthened opinion. But I believe I was told, explicitly, that if I believed the Genesis story, then I would accept no logical explanation. Apparently for anything, as we were not talking about Genesis. Does that not sound a bit dismissive of the intellectual abilities of, well, just about every Christian?
Once again, though, I am not attempting to accuse anyone. I don't actually mind the statement, I can even see the point, I just am not sure what conversation is possible after such a relationship is established.0 -
Patti can you honestly say that you don't feel "sorry" for non believers?
No, I do not feel sorry for non believers as in pity. I feel a deep sadness, only because I believe in the goodness of God. Not because I feel morally superior or because I'm a better person.0 -
An opinion is fine, I think, Even a strengthened opinion. But I believe I was told, explicitly, that if I believed the Genesis story, then I would accept no logical explanation. Apparently for anything, as we were not talking about Genesis. Does that not sound a bit dismissive of the intellectual abilities of, well, just about every Christian?
I'll do my best to tackle this one, if you don't mind David.
For me, and I'm sure a great many non-believers, if you believe the story in Genesis to be the factual reality of how life and the universe began... well I just don't know what to say. We have concrete and undeniable evidence that this simply is not the case. The Earth and everything on it was not created in 7 days. Man was not always here. These are things we know.
Now if someone can deny that, basically denial of all science, and say "whatever the bible says is good enough for me and I'll not hear anything contrary" well what discussion can there be? Where can there be any logic? It's already been refuted in exchange for religious belief. Why be offended at being accused of being illogical when there's no better definition for what the person is saying? They are refusing logic and evidence. You don't get to hold that position and still say "Oh I'm as logical and capable of understanding as the next person." Clearly they are not.
Everyone has that right. If you prefer to believe in Genesis over Big Bang Theory and evolution that is within the rights of every free person. But don't then take offense at being called illogical. It's the position that person has freely chosen.0 -
An opinion is fine, I think, Even a strengthened opinion. But I believe I was told, explicitly, that if I believed the Genesis story, then I would accept no logical explanation. Apparently for anything, as we were not talking about Genesis. Does that not sound a bit dismissive of the intellectual abilities of, well, just about every Christian?
I'll do my best to tackle this one, if you don't mind David.
For me, and I'm sure a great many non-believers, if you believe the story in Genesis to be the factual reality of how life and the universe began... well I just don't know what to say. We have concrete and undeniable evidence that this simply is not the case. The Earth and everything on it was not created in 7 days. Man was not always here. These are things we know.
Now if someone can deny that, basically denial of all science, and say "whatever the bible says is good enough for me and I'll not hear anything contrary" well what discussion can there be? Where can there be any logic? It's already been refuted in exchange for religious belief. Why be offended at being accused of being illogical when there's no better definition for what the person is saying? They are refusing logic and evidence. You don't get to hold that position and still say "Oh I'm as logical and capable of understanding as the next person." Clearly they are not.
Everyone has that right. If you prefer to believe in Genesis over Big Bang Theory and evolution that is within the rights of every free person. But don't then take offense at being called illogical. It's the position that person has freely chosen.
I can absolutely believe that, so long as that everyone understands that it is a bit of strawman argument. That is, it represents the position YEC, or young earth creationists. It requires a dedication to biblical literalism that even the bible does not call for. For one thing, many of the "days" referred to in creation occured before astronomical days had been set in motion. Most of us believe a form of progressive creationism, and old earth creationism. It holds to creation "ex nihilio" (which predicted big bang theory while everyone else was still stuck in eternal universe mode), non literal days of creation, and bows to some extent to scientific cosmology, but not to scientism or darwinian logic.
Frankly, I had thought that I had made it clear that I was not a biblical literalist, so to assume that I hold to a literal Genesis account does not make much sense to me. Why not ask first?0 -
An opinion is fine, I think, Even a strengthened opinion. But I believe I was told, explicitly, that if I believed the Genesis story, then I would accept no logical explanation. Apparently for anything, as we were not talking about Genesis. Does that not sound a bit dismissive of the intellectual abilities of, well, just about every Christian?
I'll do my best to tackle this one, if you don't mind David.
For me, and I'm sure a great many non-believers, if you believe the story in Genesis to be the factual reality of how life and the universe began... well I just don't know what to say. We have concrete and undeniable evidence that this simply is not the case. The Earth and everything on it was not created in 7 days. Man was not always here. These are things we know.
Now if someone can deny that, basically denial of all science, and say "whatever the bible says is good enough for me and I'll not hear anything contrary" well what discussion can there be? Where can there be any logic? It's already been refuted in exchange for religious belief. Why be offended at being accused of being illogical when there's no better definition for what the person is saying? They are refusing logic and evidence. You don't get to hold that position and still say "Oh I'm as logical and capable of understanding as the next person." Clearly they are not.
Everyone has that right. If you prefer to believe in Genesis over Big Bang Theory and evolution that is within the rights of every free person. But don't then take offense at being called illogical. It's the position that person has freely chosen.
I can absolutely believe that, so long as that everyone understands that it is a bit of strawman argument. That is, it represents the position YEC, or young earth creationists. It requires a dedication to biblical literalism that even the bible does not call for. For one thing, many of the "days" referred to in creation occured before astronomical days had been set in motion. Most of us believe a form of progressive creationism, and old earth creationism. It holds to creation "ex nihilio" (which predicted big bang theory while everyone else was still stuck in eternal universe mode), non literal days of creation, and bows to some extent to scientific cosmology, but not to scientism or darwinian logic.
Frankly, I had thought that I had made it clear that I was not a biblical literalist, so to assume that I hold to a literal Genesis account does not make much sense to me. Why not ask first?
Seems that more logical Christians are abandoning the literal biblical translations in an attempt to stay current and even their faith cannot justify such obvious deficiencies in factual science such as Genesis. However, they still manage to believe in A god impregnating a young Jewish girl with a demigod to save all mankind, and who also had magic powers. So congrats on not believing the creation story is literal. J
ust take it a step farther and realize that the Jesus story is probably not real either. Besides, that is the biggest problem I have with christian dogma. There is so much that Christ says that is spot on and just, but the people who made these religions up deemed it necessary to include the threat of hell and the reward of heaven. When I was a christian, the truth of whether or not Christ had super powers was irrelavent and does nothing to make me believe his teachings were right or wrong. And that is why I think faith can be a dangerous thing, seems to me that behavior should be based on intelligence and empathy, not because some one can perform miracles.0 -
An opinion is fine, I think, Even a strengthened opinion. But I believe I was told, explicitly, that if I believed the Genesis story, then I would accept no logical explanation. Apparently for anything, as we were not talking about Genesis. Does that not sound a bit dismissive of the intellectual abilities of, well, just about every Christian?
I'll do my best to tackle this one, if you don't mind David.
For me, and I'm sure a great many non-believers, if you believe the story in Genesis to be the factual reality of how life and the universe began... well I just don't know what to say. We have concrete and undeniable evidence that this simply is not the case. The Earth and everything on it was not created in 7 days. Man was not always here. These are things we know.
Now if someone can deny that, basically denial of all science, and say "whatever the bible says is good enough for me and I'll not hear anything contrary" well what discussion can there be? Where can there be any logic? It's already been refuted in exchange for religious belief. Why be offended at being accused of being illogical when there's no better definition for what the person is saying? They are refusing logic and evidence. You don't get to hold that position and still say "Oh I'm as logical and capable of understanding as the next person." Clearly they are not.
Everyone has that right. If you prefer to believe in Genesis over Big Bang Theory and evolution that is within the rights of every free person. But don't then take offense at being called illogical. It's the position that person has freely chosen.
I can absolutely believe that, so long as that everyone understands that it is a bit of strawman argument. That is, it represents the position YEC, or young earth creationists. It requires a dedication to biblical literalism that even the bible does not call for. For one thing, many of the "days" referred to in creation occured before astronomical days had been set in motion. Most of us believe a form of progressive creationism, and old earth creationism. It holds to creation "ex nihilio" (which predicted big bang theory while everyone else was still stuck in eternal universe mode), non literal days of creation, and bows to some extent to scientific cosmology, but not to scientism or darwinian logic.
Frankly, I had thought that I had made it clear that I was not a biblical literalist, so to assume that I hold to a literal Genesis account does not make much sense to me. Why not ask first?
Seems that more logical Christians are abandoning the literal biblical translations in an attempt to stay current and even their faith cannot justify such obvious deficiencies in factual science such as Genesis. However, they still manage to believe in A god impregnating a young Jewish girl with a demigod to save all mankind, and who also had magic powers. So congrats on not believing the creation story is literal. J
ust take it a step farther and realize that the Jesus story is probably not real either. Besides, that is the biggest problem I have with christian dogma. There is so much that Christ says that is spot on and just, but the people who made these religions up deemed it necessary to include the threat of hell and the reward of heaven. When I was a christian, the truth of whether or not Christ had super powers was irrelavent and does nothing to make me believe his teachings were right or wrong. And that is why I think faith can be a dangerous thing, seems to me that behavior should be based on intelligence and empathy, not because some one can perform miracles.
There is much that I see as right in what you have said. However, I would not have it mistaken that because I do not believe a literal account, that I believe a non-biblical account. What I believe is still cohesive to the bible, and can be supported by a biblical theology. It is just informed by modern science; it is nuanced, not heretical. Heck, there were cosmologists in the 20th century (like Hoyle) who did all he could to disprove BB theory, as it read too much like Genesis (a universe with a specific start, and something from nothing). I do, at this time, believe the bible to inerrant, and have not met a satisfying theology that allows me to demote Christ to a mere man.0 -
An opinion is fine, I think, Even a strengthened opinion. But I believe I was told, explicitly, that if I believed the Genesis story, then I would accept no logical explanation. Apparently for anything, as we were not talking about Genesis. Does that not sound a bit dismissive of the intellectual abilities of, well, just about every Christian?
I'll do my best to tackle this one, if you don't mind David.
For me, and I'm sure a great many non-believers, if you believe the story in Genesis to be the factual reality of how life and the universe began... well I just don't know what to say. We have concrete and undeniable evidence that this simply is not the case. The Earth and everything on it was not created in 7 days. Man was not always here. These are things we know.
Now if someone can deny that, basically denial of all science, and say "whatever the bible says is good enough for me and I'll not hear anything contrary" well what discussion can there be? Where can there be any logic? It's already been refuted in exchange for religious belief. Why be offended at being accused of being illogical when there's no better definition for what the person is saying? They are refusing logic and evidence. You don't get to hold that position and still say "Oh I'm as logical and capable of understanding as the next person." Clearly they are not.
Everyone has that right. If you prefer to believe in Genesis over Big Bang Theory and evolution that is within the rights of every free person. But don't then take offense at being called illogical. It's the position that person has freely chosen.
I can absolutely believe that, so long as that everyone understands that it is a bit of strawman argument. That is, it represents the position YEC, or young earth creationists. It requires a dedication to biblical literalism that even the bible does not call for. For one thing, many of the "days" referred to in creation occured before astronomical days had been set in motion. Most of us believe a form of progressive creationism, and old earth creationism. It holds to creation "ex nihilio" (which predicted big bang theory while everyone else was still stuck in eternal universe mode), non literal days of creation, and bows to some extent to scientific cosmology, but not to scientism or darwinian logic.
Frankly, I had thought that I had made it clear that I was not a biblical literalist, so to assume that I hold to a literal Genesis account does not make much sense to me. Why not ask first?
Seems that more logical Christians are abandoning the literal biblical translations in an attempt to stay current and even their faith cannot justify such obvious deficiencies in factual science such as Genesis. However, they still manage to believe in A god impregnating a young Jewish girl with a demigod to save all mankind, and who also had magic powers. So congrats on not believing the creation story is literal. J
ust take it a step farther and realize that the Jesus story is probably not real either. Besides, that is the biggest problem I have with christian dogma. There is so much that Christ says that is spot on and just, but the people who made these religions up deemed it necessary to include the threat of hell and the reward of heaven. When I was a christian, the truth of whether or not Christ had super powers was irrelavent and does nothing to make me believe his teachings were right or wrong. And that is why I think faith can be a dangerous thing, seems to me that behavior should be based on intelligence and empathy, not because some one can perform miracles.
There is much that I see as right in what you have said. However, I would not have it mistaken that because I do not believe a literal account, that I believe a non-biblical account. What I believe is still cohesive to the bible, and can be supported by a biblical theology. It is just informed by modern science; it is nuanced, not heretical. Heck, there were cosmologists in the 20th century (like Hoyle) who did all he could to disprove BB theory, as it read too much like Genesis (a universe with a specific start, and something from nothing). I do, at this time, believe the bible to inerrant, and have not met a satisfying theology that allows me to demote Christ to a mere man.
But what if he were? Why does the belief in his teachings have to go hand in hand with his miracles? That is the point I am getting at is that morality can not come with threats or rewards, and that is what Christianty provides. How many people would follow Jesus the philosopher if his message was exactly the same. What if some one with miracle like powers said "Hate your neighbors?" Does magic/miracle make something moral?0 -
Also, Catholics can't speak for all Christians (thankfully!)- I was raised by Lutheran parents, and we did not believe in the Catholic saints or hold onto much of the silliness of other Christians. We were taught that evolution was real, for instance.
Just an aside--I was raised in the "pre-Vatican II" days of Catholicism. We were taught (in a Catholic school) that evolution was real as well. We were also taught that the bible was not to be taken literally (can't remember if they said the same thing about the new testament), and that church and state were separate. And this was not a "liberal" parish by any stretch of the imagination.
Oh, and we were also taught that, while christmas trees, santa claus and presents were all fine and good, they had nothing to do with christmas. Nothing but advent wreaths and nativity scenes in the church and school.
As conservative and weird as it could be at times (e.g. nuns telling me in third grade that I might be possessed by satan because I wrote left-handed), in many ways it seems incredibly tolerant compared to some of the stuff I hear spewed today by catholic clergy and the likes of william donohue.0 -
But what if he were? Why does the belief in his teachings have to go hand in hand with his miracles? That is the point I am getting at is that morality can not come with threats or rewards, and that is what Christianty provides. How many people would follow Jesus the philosopher if his message was exactly the same. What if some one with miracle like powers said "Hate your neighbors?" Does magic/miracle make something moral?
In truth, it does have to do with authority. His Authority was from God the father, his miracles were one sign of that authority. Honestly, though, while all His teachings were correct, He was here for a mission, and his death and resurrection were key to that. As Paul said,
"If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
Come to think of it, though, per Revelation, someone with magic powers is supposed to do something very like that! Let me know if hear anything about it.0 -
There's nothing objective about religious morality.
^^^ This. The end.
I don't know, is the point of a belief in objective morality that we already have it, intact, or that there is one that is yet to be completely puzzled out? Some of the plain "rule following" in Christianity is an admission that we do not completely understand the "highest good" and are placing ourselves under He who does. Yet, we also believe that we can grow in love the more time we spend seeking it, and become better free moral agents.
I would think that idea blows some serious holes into the ideas of religious literalists and absolutists, as well as those who insist on using religious scripture as the basis of political ideas and legislation.
It also means that anyone who claims to know "god's will" is essentially full of crap.0 -
Logically birth of a man-god can be any story accepted by followers. Had jesus been hatched from a special egg, I'm sure that story would be suitable if followers were gullible enough to believe it.Assume that I do not believe Genesis (I do have a biology heavy degree), and then, logically, explain to me why (other than as a 'sign') a deity must be born of a virgin to be a man-god?
The bible was written after death, so really just like Nostradamus, followers can selectively make it sound as if a prophecy had been fulfilled.And, if it was a sign, why are we not then contextually obligated to assume that the prophecy means "virgin." Ambiguous language or not.
We hear ALL the time how the bible is fulfilling prophecy after the fact. Apparently 9-11 was a biblical prophecy.
http://www.bible-codes.org/
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Christ was clear that the entire could be summed up into the "Love thy neighber.." indicating that love was the sum of law, and that all our moral duties could be found within there (if we could get past the so called noetic effect of sin, mind you).
Since this idea did not originate with either jesus or any other religion, you are making a pretty strong case for the idea that we do have an inherent moral structure that can exist quite nicely without any theological underpinnings.0
This discussion has been closed.