My Problem With Biblical Literalism

[FArchivist]

Why is consistency so much to ask from a religion?

Because consistency isn't a hallmark of any belief system, be it a religion, political ideology, or a philosophy. Belief and Consistency don't really go together.

As a historical aside, the questioning of faith and the required consistency for that faith led, in the Catholic Church (all branches), to the creation of the body of doctrine and the various several religious works that examine such questions. Like Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

There's a reason for that: I didn't.

What is meant by "editing the Bible" is when it went from one version to the next, not all of it made it. There were councils who would decide that some parts of a previous version of The Good Book shouldn't make it into the next version. Entire passages and even books would be excised; not even nearly the same thing as what you "think" editing is.

Woooo-hoo! The Biblical canon! Man, what a mess that is.

How do you tell which are which? What criteria do you use? Do you just trust your minister to tell you the difference? How does she know?

That depends on the denomination of Christianity you follow. The Roman Catholic Church had several councils back in the early part of its existence to determine which were true and which were false. Doctrine created later on further explicates. It's all in the Cathechism.

If that's the case for the Bible, why not do the same with the Tao Te Ching, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, or the sutras?

The Tao Te Ching doesn't have doctrinal disputes because Taoists don't go for doctrine. The Vedas and the Sutras both have gone through similar vetting in their own religious structures. The Mormons are just another branch of Christianity, with a new book added.

Why should a different starting point matter when trying to determine the truth? Different fields of study come from vastly different starting points, but their results converge on the same model of the universe.

Because Truth is not Fact and Fact is not Truth. You keep trying to apply the scientific method to religion. It doesn't work that way. You can't apply the scientific method to Christianity, Buddhism, Shintoism, the Greek god mythos, Sumerian religion, Existentialism, Nihilism, Communism, Liberalism, or any other religion, philosophy, ideology, or belief system.

Ah, but logic that begins with false premises comes to false conclusions. If you cannot show your premises to be true, you cannot show that your conclusions are true.

Yes, in science.
But faith does not require that a premise be factual. That's what you fail to acknowledge. Ever.
If faith did require that a premise be factual, it would cease to be a faith and would become a scientific hypothesis.

However, more often, I've had atheists doing it to me. It sucks, too. Do they do it more overall? Can't say. I know they do it to me personally more.

Nah, the atheists don't do it more overall. It's really not the atheists doing it. It's the anti-theists, their unlovely cousin.

Now, while I know lots of atheists IRL (including my wife), I don't find too many anti-theists. I find tons of them online, to where they outweigh the atheists 10-to-1. It's sort of the same thing with libertarians. Few of them IRL, but online? Hooo-boy. Crawling out of the WOODWORK.

More to the point, I think, why should anybody trust a collection of superstitions and folk tales written by misogynist, patriarchal goatherds 2000+ years ago?

*dryly* Why should anyone trust a collection of political wank and philosophical speculation used as the basis for the law of the land written by misogynist, patriarchal, racist, rich land-holding slave owners written 200+ years ago?

That someone ended up face down in a ditch over an argument in the fanfic community. >.>

If you look at the Synod of Hippo and the Councils of Carthage, you might find that this is not too far from the truth.

If you're saying that the viewpoint that the Bible is divinely inspired, but simply fucked up by people as we have free will and are dicks, that does not answer the question of why there hasn't been rumedial classes. It is illogical for a being on the level of the Christian God, with the Christian God's motivations to just go "You know what? Fuck it" and walk away from the table.

Actually, no. It's not illogical if you say "After sending Jesus, I have done all the interference I can do. Anything further would be a violation of free will." It's more setting up the game, leading people through the first rounds on their own, and then saying "OK guys. Time to referee yourselves." and walking away.

Or, if you prefer, you've reached 18 and you've been kicked out of the house to make it on your own. Welcome to being an adult. The advent of the Messiah was humanity's 18th birthday.

[Gravekeeper]

You can't apply the scientific method to Christianity, Buddhism, Shintoism, the Greek god mythos, Sumerian religion, Existentialism, Nihilism, Communism, Liberalism, or any other religion, philosophy, ideology, or belief system.

Actually you can ( and should ). Buddhism especially, seeing as one of the sutras *is* a scientific method. -.-

Yes, in science.
But faith does not require that a premise be factual. That's what you fail to acknowledge. Ever. If faith did require that a premise be factual, it would cease to be a faith and would become a scientific hypothesis.

Faith does not require the premise be factual, it *states* the premise *is* factual even in the face of opposing facts. Religion is in effect a kind of scientific hypothesis whether it realises it or not.

*dryly* Why should anyone trust a collection of political wank and philosophical speculation used as the basis for the law of the land written by misogynist, patriarchal, racist, rich land-holding slave owners written 200+ years ago?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Because its arguable that in this day and age you *shouldn't* be. ;p

Actually, no. It's not illogical if you say "After sending Jesus, I have done all the interference I can do. Anything further would be a violation of free will." It's more setting up the game, leading people through the first rounds on their own, and then saying "OK guys. Time to referee yourselves." and walking away.

Or, if you prefer, you've reached 18 and you've been kicked out of the house to make it on your own. Welcome to being an adult. The advent of the Messiah was humanity's 18th birthday.

For any of that to be logical, God would have had to have farked off the second Jesus died. But he didn't. Jesus came back, is slated to come back again, God is supposedly dicking around with us on a daily basis and has vowed to come back when we're 21 and kick the ever living shit out of us if we didn't do that stuff he told a hilariously small group of people to do a couple thousand years ago. Totally ignoring everyone else in the world that didn't live in the Middle East and just hoping it would go by word of mouth.

While simaltaneously telling another group no no, Jesus wasn't the last one. He was totally cool and all but Mohamed was the last one. Your analogy requires ignoring so much about religion and mythology ( both before and after Jesus ) its not even funny. =/

[FArchivist]

Actually you can ( and should ). Buddhism especially, seeing as one of the sutras *is* a scientific method. -.-

Laboratory provability of rebirth is an extreme problem.

Faith does not require the premise be factual, it *states* the premise *is* factual even in the face of opposing facts. Religion is in effect a kind of scientific hypothesis whether it realises it or not.

No, there we are confusing Truth and Fact again, which are two different things. A Fact may be proven by experimentation in accordance with scientific methodology. A Truth is statement of faith. Facts may be true, but they are not truths. A subtle distinction, but a very important one if you ever want to go toe-to-toe with a philosophy major. Or a Communist.

You see the same thing in political science. Political science differentiates between methodology, which is the actual practice of politics, and philosophy, which is adherence to a political ideology of some sort. That the Constitution guarantees certain rights is Fact; that we hold these rights to be self-evident is a Truth, but not Fact.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Because its arguable that in this day and age you *shouldn't* be. ;p

Then you have just agreed that the Constitution of the USA shouldn't be. It was written by misogynist, patriarchal, racist, rich land-holding slave owners 200+ years ago.

MY point is that anything that we hold as 'sacred', for lack of a better word at the moment, is in the same fix the Bible is. Keep in mind that ALL of the following are equivalent:

- political ideologies
- philosophy
- religion

All three operate from faith. All three cannot be proven. The idea that we should have freedom of speech, for instance, cannot be proven in a laboratory according to scientific method. Neither can any of the 'natural rights' so beloved of Western culture since the Enlightenment.

God is supposedly dicking around with us on a daily basis and has vowed to come back when we're 21 and kick the ever living shit out of us if we didn't do that stuff he told a hilariously small group of people to do a couple thousand years ago. Totally ignoring everyone else in the world that didn't live in the Middle East and just hoping it would go by word of mouth.

1) God doesn't dick around with us on a daily basis. At least, the RCC doesn't say that. Now some Protestants, on the other hand...
2) That's why we're supposed to spread the "Good Word". Of course, it all differs on who and how we're supposed to spread it, depending on the denomination.

While simaltaneously telling another group no no, Jesus wasn't the last one. He was totally cool and all but Mohamed was the last one. Your analogy requires ignoring so much about religion and mythology ( both before and after Jesus ) its not even funny. =/

I'm speaking purely from the perspective of the RCC, which is the only thing I can speak for. Note, each sect says the other sect has got it wrong. Sort of like the difference between Thereveda, Mahayana, and Vajrayana sects, with more argument.

[Rapscallion]

No, there we are confusing Truth and Fact again, which are two different things. A Fact may be proven by experimentation in accordance with scientific methodology. A Truth is statement of faith. Facts may be true, but they are not truths. A subtle distinction, but a very important one if you ever want to go toe-to-toe with a philosophy major. Or a Communist.

It's not a subtle distinction. It's a word game. "This is what that word actually means in my world, and therefore I'm right." Seen it a few times.

Capitalising the first letter of a standard word and using it as a proper noun shouldn't allow anyone to change the meaning of it. It's an attempt to try and justify an untenable position by linguistics, and it's been perpetrated for generations.

As far as I'm concerned, it cannot be a truth unless it's verified by some means. There are mathmatical proofs that two plus two equals four - I saw one and didn't understand it, but I was fourteen at the time and conceptual maths isn't really my strong point.

Define it within a religious setting if you want, but if your claims are provably incorrect and you're calling them 'Truths' then you're setting yourself up for a fall.

You see the same thing in political science. Political science differentiates between methodology, which is the actual practice of politics, and philosophy, which is adherence to a political ideology of some sort. That the Constitution guarantees certain rights is Fact; that we hold these rights to be self-evident is a Truth, but not Fact.

Your point would be...? I'm not a citizen of the US, so I don't have the same viewpoint as yourself. What I do have is a consideration that this is an attempt to cash in on the popularity of said document amongst your audience here.

Of course, I happen to disagree with elements of the US constitution, but that's probably irrelevant.

MY point is that anything that we hold as 'sacred', for lack of a better word at the moment, is in the same fix the Bible is. Keep in mind that ALL of the following are equivalent:

- political ideologies
- philosophy
- religion

All three operate from faith. All three cannot be proven. The idea that we should have freedom of speech, for instance, cannot be proven in a laboratory according to scientific method. Neither can any of the 'natural rights' so beloved of Western culture since the Enlightenment.

They don't need to be tested in a lab. They're tested in countries. On populations. By populations in democracies.

1) God doesn't dick around with us on a daily basis.

Because he doesn't exist?

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

Raps, all he's saying is that in the Roman Catholic Church, we have some ideas which we call Truths. These are doctrinal ideas based on faith that form the premise for the rest of doctrine. Like God's existence. The idea that Jesus is both Son of God and Son of Man. That God has a plan for us. The Trinity. Etc. Truth (with a capital T) in the RCC is a near-synonym for Mystery as in something we believe by faith.

According to Peter Kreeft, a theologian and apologist of the Church, Truths fall into the category of acts of reason based on faith. We can still understand them through reason, through breaking down what it means, defining ideas, but the premise lies in faith.

And to the last...I guess we'll find out when we die, right?

[Rapscallion]

What I'm saying is that it's still name games. I went to the toilet and produced something I'll call gold. Other people might realise what it actually is is fecal matter, but calling it gold gives it so much more credence, right?

It's not 'Truth' if it's false.

Oh look, I just urinated pixie juice and diluted diamonds!

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

Just because you call it false doesn't make it any less true to myself or other adherents to the Catholic faith.

Again, I understand we're coming from different premises here. And that the ultimate proof won't be ours until after we're dead. But it's not a name game. It's a difference of opinions. My opinion is that there is a kind, loving God who's been trying to guide us on a path of goodness and morality. Yours is that there isn't one. In my opinion, there are some things that have been told to us by God so, by definition of God, are true. Since you don't believe in that same God, you, of course, don't believe it to be true. And that's okay. Just as long as we both realize all we're doing is giving each other definitions of our stances.

And what are you going to do with your newfound source of wealth, Raps?

[Lachrymose]

Something is either true or it isn't.

If you (general) believe something to be true, but it isn't, it doesn't magically make it true (and vice versa).

[Kheldarson]

So...I believe that caramel is kind of nasty. This is a true statement. But my mom enjoys caramel and thinks it's one of the best things in the world. This is also a true statement. Is one of us lying then?

That's the same argument being given here. Only replace caramel with God. I haven't asked you to believe that God exists, only to believe that I believe God exists. And thus I have a whole line of logic to go with it.

[Rapscallion]

I fully understand that you believe in god. However, that doesn't mean that god exists.

Rapscallion

[RecoveringKinkoid]

And we fully understand you don't believe he does. That does not mean he doesn't.

The same logic can be applied to either side of the debate.

Which is why these sorts of debates are fruitless. Nobody's going to convince anyone of anything.

My original point in all this was while non believers complain about believers shoving their beliefs down everyone's throat, as a believer I've been subject to same from unbelievers.

Which baffles me. Because if you don't believe in anything, why should anyone care that I believe in something?

I mean, if I said i believe the sun is actually Apollo driving the sun across the sky and I had to take a day off to sacrifice doves to Aphrodite, would anyone care that I thought that, really? Heck, if I said "I'm Jewish and I can't drive after sundown on Friday night" nobody would even blink, and Judaism is an actual widely practice religion. However, I say "I'm Christian" and all of a sudden, the fact that I believe in the Christian God is some sort of issue that people who profess to believe in nothing care about.

Honestly, I don't get it. I have yet to hear a compelling argument to help me get it, either.

[Andara Bledin]

Which baffles me. Because if you don't believe in anything, why should anyone care that I believe in something?

Honestly, I don't get it. I have yet to hear a compelling argument to help me get it, either.

I don't get it either, but according to some of those people on this board, it's somehow their duty to lead the rest of us to the light of truth.

Sounds awfully hypocritical to me.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

To repeat myself, I've backed away from being confrontational over the years. Not sure if I lost interest, found it a lost cause, or saw something shiny, but these days I reserve it for debate boards like this or when confronted by someone religious trying to push their agenda. I don't particularly approve of it, nor do I go out of my way to disapprove. It's human nature to try and persuade others of your point of view. As the atheist movement (not exactly much of an organisation) grows and matures, I think it'll settle down .

The whole issue of atheists pushing back is pretty new - I think the first target for those who want to combat religious evangelists are going to be those who evangelise. There aren't any door-to-door jews proclaiming their faith and exhorting others to join them, at least not that I've experienced. Never seen any muslims do that either, though in the current age they'd be taking their lives in their hands. A few of the Hare Krishna did, but they've died down to a few orange-robed dudes dancing through the streets once in a while, tinkling tiny cymbals if memory serves. Not sure how many people they've converted that way, mind. Maybe a few people still out of their minds on last night's ecstacy, perhaps.

See, the problem is that the only religious group to go out and try to convert others heavily in the western world are identified as christian, and that's almost certainly why you get the bile from the militant atheists. I'm not condoning their actions, only explaining why I think you get this impression.

I've seen a number of religious arguments on Youtube, and the intelligent atheists on there will happily debate with all comers. Primarily it's the christians, but I remember seeing atheists debating with other faiths.

Why should I care?

As I said before, there have been a huge number of vile things done by those who truly believe. I don't think most of those at the top of such organisations have anything but political gain in mind when arranging atrocities, but the acts are generally carried out by true believers who swallow it whole. The suicide bomber in the market place thinks that within seconds he'll be surrounded by seventy-two virgins. The widow commiting suttee believed she would wash away her husband's sins for his time in the afterlife.

I've been in many impressive churches as a tourist. The religious building in Karlstein Castle was closed at the time of my visit, but it was impressive. There was some exquisite architecture in the church in Prague Castle. I can highly recommend it. I've been up the Tower of Pisa where the bell ringers risked their lives all weathers to bring the faithful to prayer in the Field of Miracles. I've looked from there over the dome of the church or cathedral whatever it is (memory not what it used to be) there and marvelled at the intricate workmanship that went into designing it. I've posted pictures of my trip to the Isle of Man where I saw some enchanting gothic churches. I saw a mate get married in a charming country church some years ago in St Ives.

How much better would humanity have been if the efforts that had gone into such been put into genuine improvements? Sure, they're a unifying force for less-advanced times, but that just makes them a manner of controlling the masses. How far back did the catholic church push scientific advancement when it denied that the earth rotated around the sun? Galileo ended up under house arrest. I'm not certain where it says in the bible that the earth is the centre of the universe, but his views were considered heresy.

How much better could we be if we weren't held back by superstition?

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

How much better could we be if we weren't held back by superstition?

We wouldn't. We'd still be the same people we are, fearing the same things we do now, only for different reasons.

Religion is not the cause, merely a method.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Not sure what you're saying here. If we managed to reason away religion as a whole? All forms? Just one or two prevalent ones? We'd make our own?

I'd be quite happy for religion in all forms just vanish painlessly. If something comes along to replace it, we can deal with that in due course.

Rapscallion