My Problem With Biblical Literalism

[Gravekeeper]

I don't quote when I'm addressing the person directly above me. But as for the second part you quoted, Gravekeeper, that was continuing my own thought. We was a general usage.

Sorry, but it sounded like you were talking to someone else entirely, seeing as I'm not an Atheist. =p I'm just being logical about this.

And I've only claimed that I have a truth. And that you have a truth. And we'll discover THE TRUTH when we're dead. So who has the burden?

Depends entirely on what the truths are and what you are doing with them. If you have your truth and keep it to yourself, you have no burden to anyone but yourself. If you bring your truth out into the open to show & tell with others, the burden is on you. If you bring your truth out in the face of knowledge and scientific fact, the burden is again on you.

I don't force my opinion. I answer questions. You want an answer to something that is based in faith about a being that, by understanding, is difficult to define in human terms as He's larger than human definition.

I don't want an answer, I'm pointing out the flaws in the argument. He means nothing to me, as He in this sense is yours alone and a construct of your faith. Also, a higher being however can be defined in human terms and can even be theorized scientifically. Alien intelligence? Some form of evolved conciousness? An omega point singularity? Quantum simulation?

The problem is religion tends to reject a scientific explaination outright. I'm a firm believer that we're probably not going to find out what The Truth(tm) is as you so call it, without both sides of this coming together to seek it. Or we die. But that sort of screws up being able to write a research paper about it. >.>

I already know by simply reading other threads in this forum that that's a pissing contest. There's no proof either side can issue to dissuade the other. So why continue to bring it up? It is possible to discuss religious topics without debating the existence of God.

I personally dislike both blind faith and militant atheism. However, it is difficult to elude either one in the Religion forum. As they will inevitable come up. Especially when the topic is Biblican Literalism. Though I do agree I would perfer to get back to the Bible itself. Problem is blind faith in the Bible begs logical interference. Its hard to talk about without drifting back into this Theism vs Atheism stuff yet again.

[Rapscallion]

Why should the burden of proof be just on those of us who believe?

My experience of the average atheist is that they aren't claiming that something is, they take the view that someone claiming that something is when it's unproveable and unfounded by evidence as being inaccurate.

Theists are the ones who need to back up their claims. They're the ones who say that something is, despite there being no evidence.

Try reading up about the basis of the Flying Spaghetti Monster movement. It works on the very same principles you claim.

We don't take issue with your non-belief. Personally I've stated on here, particularly in this thread, I view it as a personal opinion of mine and respect others decisions to have different opinions.

I don't take issue with you believing what you do unless you either try and impress your views on me or make claims on a debate forum.

But even then, we have a problem. See, you insist that the only things that should be allowed are those things that we have here on this world.

Prove that there's more to it, prove that your belief is correct. I'd actually be happier knowing that there's an angel sat on my shoulder nudging my foot on the brake pedal when a child runs across the road when I'm driving to work. I'd love to know that when I do something good for someone, that the universe rewards me in direct response to that. I'd like to have far more than my life expentancy of existence. I really do want that to be the case, so feel free to prove it.

I'd love to be a D&D cleric. I'd revel in my one-ness with the divine if I were able to close wounds and revive injured people with a touch of my hands. I'd consider myself fortunate beyond other mortals were I able to feed thousands of people with a prayer. I'd want to be able to cure cancer with a few mumbled words and maybe a sacrifice of a piece of tofu. Regrettably, that has never happened. The christian god is claimed to be able to provide these miracles. How hard would it be for such an omnipotent being to put letters of fire in the sky saying, "I exist, so get worshipping."?

When one group insists that things the other definitively believes in should be disallowed in an argument or debate, neither group will be well satisfied with the answers.

As above, feel free to provide proof. I would quite happily allow it in debate and I would believe along with you if proof could be brought. All I see so far is pretty much, "I get warm fuzzies from believing this, so I do."

And I've only claimed that I have a truth. And that you have a truth. And we'll discover THE TRUTH when we're dead. So who has the burden?

The one claiming there's more than we can prove or experience.

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshankbutt.php

I suggest you read and think about that. It's what non-believers come up against regularly from evangelists. I really wish I'd written it.

You want an answer to something that is based in faith about a being that, by understanding, is difficult to define in human terms as He's larger than human definition. I already know by simply reading other threads in this forum that that's a pissing contest.

Well, in simplified terms it's simply a case of one side saying something is one way without providing evidence or anything tangible, and when inconsistencies are pointed out by the other side end up saying that they're going to continue anyway because it makes them feel good. Maybe I'm biased, but that's what it boils down to.

There's no proof either side can issue to dissuade the other. So why continue to bring it up? It is possible to discuss religious topics without debating the existence of God.

Um, the existence of god is fundamental to religious topics when there is a faith involved that is based around his existence. I think it's pretty important.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

I'd love to be a D&D cleric. I'd revel in my one-ness with the divine if I were able to close wounds and revive injured people with a touch of my hands.

Oh man, I'd give myself maybe a week of doing that until the whining reached a point where I shift my daily spells to little more than Firestorm and Gate. >.>

[Rapscallion]

Despite what people like to think, the study of semantics is never a 'word game'. Language is often imprecise and English is the most imprecise language of them all; the definitions of "truth" and "fact" that I am using are the ones used in discussion of philosophy and belief systems in academia. Whether you agree with those definitions is irrelevant; context is extremely important.

The context for me is that someone is trying to hang inaccurate claims on very important and powerful words.

And it's successful.

Regrettably, don't I know it.

Then your point would be that all belief systems are false, since no belief systems are able to be verified by some means. This doesn't just mean religion; it also includes all philosophical viewpoints and political ideologies. Thus, Existentialism and a belief in the natural rights of man are also false.

I'm not fully boned up on existentialism, so I'll have to get back to you about that. Rights of man - quite frankly, in a Darwinistic world, rights mean sod all. Survival of the nastiest.

Rights are what you can afford once you've made yourself secure. We're biologically programmed to be a social animal, and with that comes the sense of belonging to a tribe. As a social construct, rights of the individual are not unreasonable.

The majority of this forum is American and thus I use an example that would be relevant to the majority. But my point is that if we're going to dismiss the product of a belief systems because of its origins with people whose morals we don't approve of, then we need to apply it equally to the products of ALL belief systems. The people who came up with "freedom of speech" or "one man, one vote" weren't moral saints either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I don't quite see the relevance of other systems, including politics, in this debate about religion.

That's not verification of anything by ANY scientific methodology. Popularity by the mob does not a truth make. And it's also inconclusive; rights are not necessary for the operation of a successful country, as history has shown us.

Indeed they are not. However, history having shown us is one form of social science. From what you said yourself, it's been proven that other systems also work. As I said above, survival of the nastiest.

That would essentially be correct. There is no disagreement with that statement. Catholic theologians have acknowledged that for years.

This is also true, but then they went on and tried to work on the basis that he does exist.

If religion had never existed at all to begin with, then right now we'd be arguing about the role of the 2000-year-old Communist Party and how they'd done some good things and some bad things and the Trotskyist Heresy and so on.

I think the cold war is proof that there's more than one political system out there - capitalism versus communism versus socialism versus...

I think that's the difference between you and I; you focus on religion specifically. I see ALL belief systems as equivalent. If religion is guilty, so is all of ideology. So is all of philosophy. Catholic, Stoic, or French Revolutionary; they're all belief systems.

Survival of the nastiest.

Actually, Galileo was more under house arrest for continuing to disseminate his information rather than the information itself.

Fluffy handcuffs are still handcuffs.

Same thing as what happened to Martin Luther actually. See, main issue with the Church as always been the fact she's a bureaucracy and bureaucracies are notorious for being hard to change.

That might be the main issue for you.

The issue became the over-reaction of various members of the Church (banning his books) but Galileo kept publishing (after being told not to) and just like a parent would after being disobeyed, Galileo got punished. But the Church kept working with his information to eventually change the calendar to the now used Gregorian calendar.

What I got out of the Galileo story is that the church didn't like being told they were wrong. It took three hundred and fifty years for them to admit it. I'd count that as over ten generations. That's not, "Oops, we were wrong." That's, "Sod you, we're right in the face of all evidence, and so are those we teach in the same vein."

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

Try reading up about the basis of the Flying Spaghetti Monster movement. It works on the very same principles you claim.

No, it doesn't. The FSM works on the principle that there's no proof, so it must be true. What every theist in this thread so far has worked on is the principle that it can't be proven, so we'll believe it, but you don't have to.

The reason the only proof you've gotten is "It gives me warm fuzzies, so I'll believe it" is because that is the only claim we've MADE. That it makes us happy, so there's nothing wrong with us believing it. We don't CARE if you believe or don't believe, what we care is that you allow US to believe.

[Rapscallion]

No, it doesn't. The FSM works on the principle that there's no proof, so it must be true. What every theist in this thread so far has worked on is the principle that it can't be proven, so we'll believe it, but you don't have to.

I'm trying to see the difference between:

"There's no proof, so it must be true"

and

"It can't be proven, so we'll believe it"

I can't. Why would you believe something you know to be other than true?

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

No, it doesn't. The FSM works on the principle that there's no proof, so it must be true.

Ehh, sort of. It goes back to Russell's Teapot. Which isn't "There's no proof, so it must be true" but rather mocking "You can't prove its NOT true, so it can be true". Referring to the tendency of the overtly religious to illogically shift the burden of proof back on science, when it belongs on the shoulders of the religion. Which requires ignoring reason and Occam's Razor.

It doesn't matter if science cannot prove it *not* true, the burden of proof is on religion, and Occam's Razor demands the simpliest explaination ( No God ) is the correct one over the complex explaination ( There is a supreme high deity thats done all this crazy shit ).

What every theist in this thread so far has worked on is the principle that it can't be proven, so we'll believe it, but you don't have to.

Again, you bring it out for show and tell, you open it up for debate. However, the crux of this issue is not what you believe in general, but specific belief in the Bible, which is a document that is easily proven false in many of its sections. The Bible, as a physical, tangible thing can be examined and can be proven or disproven to a major degree. It is not something intangible.

The reason the only proof you've gotten is "It gives me warm fuzzies, so I'll believe it" is because that is the only claim we've MADE. That it makes us happy, so there's nothing wrong with us believing it. We don't CARE if you believe or don't believe, what we care is that you allow US to believe.

Don't make me call another Bullshit Card ;p

No one is restricting your choice of beliefs. You may believe whatever the hell you want. No one on an internet forum of all places has any control or power over what you do or do not believe nor any way of forcing you to believe or not believe in something. But if you enter into discussion with your beliefs, you open those beliefs to debate and criticism by doing so. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. So either accept the this, or put your money where your mouth is and stop taking part in the discussion. It has no power over you or your beliefs. But you're not allowed to yell rules from the sidelines then whine when the players disagree.

[Andara Bledin]

My experience of the average atheist is that they aren't claiming that something is, they take the view that someone claiming that something is when it's unproveable and unfounded by evidence as being inaccurate.

The average one, yes, just like the average Christian does their own thing and leaves the rest of the world alone. Well, actually, most of the atheists I've actually met haven't actually gone that far, merely that they don't have a reason to believe there is a god, any god, and left it at that; they don't seem to feel this need to call out theists as being credulous like some of the rest of them.

And it's that vocal minority among atheists, the anti-theists, who are the other side of the coin to the fundamentalists. Both sides are as unyielding, as dogmatic as the other, and just as obnoxious and detrimental to the world around them.

And, I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but regular Christians get harassed and berated by evangelical types nearly as often as non-Christians. I've had a few get in my face that I've wanted to slap silly, myself.

Um, the existence of god is fundamental to religious topics when there is a faith involved that is based around his existence. I think it's pretty important.

Actually, you can have a quite involved discussion about even the Judeo-Christian religions without ever once acceding or denying the position of whether or not there is actually a God. The entire religion isn't about Him - a lot of it is about us.

The Bible, as a physical, tangible thing can be examined and can be proven or disproven to a major degree. It is not something intangible.

Sure, you can prove that there are flaws in the Bible.

The next step would be to discover why those flaws are there.

It seems to be very sloppy science to find them, point to them and say, "That's it, the whole thing is rubbish," and wander off.

Were they there at the beginning? Were they introduced by others either through mistakes in transcription or translation? Were they added by people who wanted to push an agenda?

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

The next step would be to discover why those flaws are there.

It seems to be very sloppy science to find them, point to them and say, "That's it, the whole thing is rubbish," and wander off.

Were they there at the beginning? Were they introduced by others either through mistakes in transcription or translation? Were they added by people who wanted to push an agenda?

Actually, I wouldn't call that science. It sounds more like historical source criticism, which is certainly academic. However, it is speculative to a degree not allowed by the scientific method.

The Bible is a rather fascinating historical document, spanning centuries, and much can be revealed about different societies and eras in history through its adaptations, changes, translations, etc. But as an accurate source for the Ultimate Truth in the Universe? Meh. Not for me.

The real problem I have, which is the same problem that many have, is that there are individuals trying to write laws and change American/Western societies based on what it contains. That would be like taking Aristotle's Poetics and demanding that all plays and musicals be written to conform to his opinions and not allowing works that go against it.

The only difference being that there's actually a stronger source of authorship with The Poetics.

[Andara Bledin]

The real problem I have, which is the same problem that many have, is that there are individuals trying to write laws and change American/Western societies based on what it contains.

Count me among that many. The fundies who want to re-write history and reshape society on the back of a flawed document should scare the crap out of any rational individual.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Sure, you can prove that there are flaws in the Bible.

The next step would be to discover why those flaws are there.

It seems to be very sloppy science to find them, point to them and say, "That's it, the whole thing is rubbish," and wander off.

Were they there at the beginning? Were they introduced by others either through mistakes in transcription or translation? Were they added by people who wanted to push an agenda?

You're speaking of different things than I am. I'm not referring to translation errors or tweaks for political agendas. I'm referring to blatant bullshit like the flood, creation fables, miracles, disagreeing perspectives on the same events from different authors, etc etc. Though the translation errors and tweaks are quite annoying too.

I mean their are non-canon gospels where Jesus fights dragons, creates life in the same fashion as God and murders other children that tattled on him. Though the dragons part would be pretty awesome if they had left it in.

Also if you go back a page or too you'll see I said no such thing about saying the whole thing is rubbish and wandering off. Quite the opposite. =p

[radiocerk]

I tend to have a problem with the political types who attempt to use Biblical literalism as a jumping board for legislation. I don't care if your book says homosexuality is wrong, not everyone believes that, and your beliefs are not any more valid than mine. Same goes for abortion, genocide, women's rights, patriarchy, etc. But the fundamentalists think that the job they were given by "God" is to rework the world, and especially the US, in their image for God's glory, or something. These people need a new book that's free of the bloodthirsty offensive stuff and just includes the warm fuzzies.

[KabeRinnaul]

You're speaking of different things than I am. I'm not referring to translation errors or tweaks for political agendas. I'm referring to blatant bullshit like the flood, creation fables, miracles, disagreeing perspectives on the same events from different authors, etc etc. Though the translation errors and tweaks are quite annoying too.

I actually find things like the flood and creation myths interesting. As written, they're plain nonsense as far as history and science go. But at the same time, the stories in the Bible were originally an oral tradition and even the oldest portions of the Old Testament weren't written down until at least 1000 BC (more likely closer to 600-500 BC). The Bible shares a number of stories (the flood being a notable one) with Sumerian mythology, and both likely derived from the same source (either a shared pre-Sumerian culture or just plagiarism on the part of the Hebrews - though the latter is a large part either way).

The flood in particular hints at an actual historical event described in oral tradition, and likely blown way out of proportion by the time I was actually recorded. The original event was likely a valley flooding and driving out a tribe of hunter-gatherers or early farmers. After being an oral tradition for so long, events were distorted and it became the world-spanning disaster recorded in Genesis.

The story of Eden is likely a similar account of a tribe being forced to move away from a fertile land in the face of natural disaster. The description of Eden as being at the head of four rivers (the Tigris and Euphrates, and two that haven't really been identified, the Pishon and Gihon - though the Pishon is quite possibly the Karun) has lead to a number of theories about it's location. One suggests that at one point, the northern end of the Persian Gulf was actually dry land and that the sea eventually rose over it, because there is evidence that two rivers met the Tigris and Euphrates there and flowed into the sea as one, which matches the description given in Genesis, though in this case the Pishon wouldn't be Karun but a river that has since dried up, as would be the Gihon.

So while the Bible as a historical document is iffy (especially for anything prior to about 700 BC) and as a scientific one basically pointless, it's still interesting as a piece of an ancient culture (moral messages notwithstanding).

[Kheldarson]

Actually, of the Torah, Genesis and Exodus should be taken as just stories. Good messages, but handed down by oral tradition so highly suspect as true history. Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy can be held to closer literalism as in they are literally listings of the laws, practices, and punishments of the society. Again, when they go into the history of the time, take as suspect, but the laws hadn't changed that much by the time of David. So the laws are okay to take literally.

Don't take that as being should be followed literally; I agree that the laws of that time no longer apply to us. But they are what was followed at the time.

[Gravekeeper]

Actually, of the Torah, Genesis and Exodus should be taken as just stories. Good messages, but handed down by oral tradition so highly suspect as true history.

Kabe is correct actually, many of the myths are Sumer in origin. The flood one especially. It's been mentioned once or twice before in these threads. Even the story of Jesus's birth liberally borrows from previous myths.

Ironically, the Quran is a much more accurate to its original message and a more cohesive work as its straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. Islam considers the Bible, specifically the Gospels, to be too corrupted by human farkwittery. Islam has 4 books supposedly given directly to prophets by God. The Quran is one. The one that Jesus recieved was the Injil, and it was its teachings that he preached. But its original message and teachings are considered lost by Islam. With only bits and pieces being contained in the Gospels.

Which I find rather fascinating to be honest. If you wish to be logical about the whole affair, Islam is a better intact information source due to its insistence on 100% accuracy within its religious texts and being written by the players in question in the the time period in question instead of hundreds of years later. Altering religious text is heresy to Islam. But they overlap with much of the same people and events as the Bible.

Of course suggesting such a thing would get me run out of town in a lot of places down south me thinks. >.>