Reasons to Believe organization

[Totenkindly]

The "Banana People" might have been fruity, but R2B seems to promote itself as a step higher on the "religious science" evolutionary scale.

Any comments based on this site or opinions as to its value?

(Also, please feel free to post more questions that you think would be interesting to discuss.)

 

[reason]

Heh.

I have nothing further to add.

 

[Totenkindly]

Heh.
I have nothing further to add.

lol -- that's pretty much what I expected you to say.

(btw, posting this was Crowsie's idea... so I absolve myself of any responsibility, either way.)

 

[rivercrow]

lol -- that's pretty much what I expected you to say.

(btw, posting this was Crowsie's idea... so I absolve myself of any responsibility, either way.)

Thanks.

 

[sdalek]

And I quote from the site...

Founded in 1986, Reasons To Believe is an international, interdenominational ministry established to communicate the uniquely factual basis for belief in the Bible as the error-free Word of God and for personal faith in Jesus Christ as Creator and Savior.

I'm sorry. The Bible was written by man, translated, interpreted and add to by man for centuries, and since man is fallible I therefore believe that it cannot be error-free as they claim. See the this doc for some interesting errors that were made in the bible. I don't claim these to be definitive; I think they make a point and are funny to read.

 

[Totenkindly]

And I quote from the site... I'm sorry. The Bible was written by man, translated, interpreted and add to by man for centuries, and since man is fallible I therefore believe that it cannot be error-free as they claim. See the this doc for some interesting errors that were made in the bible. I don't claim these to be definitive; I think they make a point and are funny to read.

Comments on the site? (As in the actual content, not just one's opinion of the Bible?)

Besides, well, Christians differ on how they view the Bible. Some view it as "error-free," inerrant, and inspired in a completely divine sense; others read them more as "natural documents" like any other document, that still have value and contain deep wisdom.

(Note: Some of the error lists floating around contain criticisms that are erroneous from the skeptical side -- they misconstrue or distort what a particular passage was actually saying, such as the infamous phrase "four corners/ends of the earth" -- Doh, this doesn't mean the Bible is saying the world is flat, it's called a metaphor! -- but all of that's besides the point.)

 

[Opivy1980]

Science and religion are opposite and cannot be reconciled because they stand on two completely opposite principles:

Science believes that something is true if it can be proven and until it is proven, then it is still not true.

Religion believes that something they say is true and only it is true because they said it and people should have "faith" in it because it was told to them by "God".

Is there any proof "God" or anything resembling it is true? No there isn't, so by definition of truth in science, it is not true. Now science doesn't claim to know what the truth is, but it doesn't expect someone to believe something just because it says it. There is proof of evolution for one, there is no proof of "intelligent design" which is one of the most unintelligent arguments ever made.

Religion interjecting itself into science is nothing more than religion's attempt to destroy one of the most rational disciplines in human existence. This is because rational thought and religion have been at odds since a caveman created fire, and the shaman was jealous and threatened and considered him a demon, and had him put to death.

Are we willing to go back to explaining things the way we did when we didn't know how it worked, "Why does it rain?" "God" "Why did humans become the dominant species?" "God" "Why have we progressed to the technological level we are at?" "God" Religion puts so little faith in human achievement, and expects people to be humbled by its complete lack of reason, like they know something that other people don't, the only thing a religious leader "knows" is people will give him or her money if they are sufficiently frightened, but at the same time hopeful.

Now the site itself is even worse than the average religious nut job, because it pretends to use logic and rational thought to justify its superstitions. Humans were created after hominids but not from them, they had the "spirit" of "God" breathed into them. Yeah try to find that in the fossil record. It is pretty well known that humans developed from a certain line of hominids, and there lineage can be traced back through the fossil record. Bzzz try again crackpot. As far as the big bang theory, science hasn't even proven that to a fault yet, so even science isn't willing to completely stand behind it yet, so incorporating it into religion is fine, but it is still unlikely that the big bang was started by "God" as opposed to a nuclear reaction.

On a side note, this whole thing about Jesus being the son of God was never actually decided until after his death. I won't deny that Jesus was a great philosopher and teacher, but he said he was "of God" not "the son of God" it was part of his teaching that everyone was "of God" and therefore was equal. A very radical thought in Roman and Jewish culture, Jesus even taught Mary Magdalene and she was actually the first Christian priest. As far as the bible of today being a literal translation of the word of "God"? That is impossible even if it originally was before, the transcriptions and missing pieces, there are numerous writings left out that were considered part of the bible, and sheer time frame, make it an impossibility for it to be a literal translation. These are the reasons that religion is so ridiculous, if they just would say something to the effect that we believe Jesus of Nazareth was a great teacher because he held views that are useful even to this day. And not "Jesus was the son of "God" who created everything and he came down because when people died they went to this magical realm where they were punished eternally, and that wasn't right, so then Jesus went to this realm, and got all the people out and then took them and himself to another magical realm where everyone is eternally happy and content. He also taught people on earth how to get to this magical realm by denying everything on earth that is enjoyable, and expecting people to pay them for telling them this." How is this any more plausible than any of what is now called mythology?

This is why science and religion will never meet, science is based in reality and religion is based in superstition.

 

[Totenkindly]

Science and religion are opposite and cannot be reconciled because they stand on two completely opposite principles:

Science believes that something is true if it can be proven and until it is proven, then it is still not true.

Religion believes that something they say is true and only it is true because they said it and people should have "faith" in it because it was told to them by "God".

True. To summarize it with a bit more alliteration, science operates on reason while religion operates on revelation.

You can't use the scientific method on revelation.

There is proof of evolution for one, there is no proof of "intelligent design" which is one of the most unintelligent arguments ever made.

Well, yes, Intelligent Design is more like an argument from absence or from ambiguity -- "There must be a god, because we don't know how else to explain this." It's the "God of the Gaps" that takes credit for things we haven't figured out yet. Two hundred years ago, God was given credit for many things that we do now understand, because the scientific method was applied. We can't say that some mysterious "God figure" was NOT involved... but we have found mechanisms in the world that can explain how things work without God being involved. That's about all that science can say.

Religion interjecting itself into science is nothing more than religion's attempt to destroy one of the most rational disciplines in human existence. This is because rational thought and religion have been at odds since a caveman created fire, and the shaman was jealous and threatened and considered him a demon, and had him put to death.

All right, now you're venturing out of logic into conjecture and showing a bias.

"God" Religion puts so little faith in human achievement, and expects people to be humbled by its complete lack of reason, like they know something that other people don't, the only thing a religious leader "knows" is people will give him or her money if they are sufficiently frightened, but at the same time hopeful.

Meh. This is an interpretation of one extreme of religious people. You aren't bothering to deal with the category as a whole, so it weakens your comments (which started out good). I would drop the whole "grinding axe against religion" taint.

As far as the big bang theory, science hasn't even proven that to a fault yet, so even science isn't willing to completely stand behind it yet, so incorporating it into religion is fine, but it is still unlikely that the big bang was started by "God" as opposed to a nuclear reaction.

Do we have any idea what happened BEFORE the universe began? Can we? (Perhaps someone with more hard knowledge of this could comment.) From a general theoretical POV, it would seem that we can't determine what the rules of reality would have been before the universe and its rules came into existence, in order to extrapolate things before the origin... hence, how do we figure out how and why the universe began? But then I thought I had read something about residual radiation that supported some ideas (now forgotten by me) about what things were like Before.

On a side note, this whole thing about Jesus being the son of God was never actually decided until after his death. I won't deny that Jesus was a great philosopher and teacher, but he said he was "of God" not "the son of God" it was part of his teaching that everyone was "of God" and therefore was equal.

That sounds like a fringe interpretation to me, from what I'd recall, but I'd have to check my sources. Both the words in many of the accepted translations, as well as the context of his words, seems to suggest he thought himself God and/or God's son.

A very radical thought in Roman and Jewish culture, Jesus even taught Mary Magdalene and she was actually the first Christian priest.

Again, this sounds like one of the many fringe concepts that the typical scribes don't take seriously. What's your source?

As far as the bible of today being a literal translation of the word of "God"? That is impossible even if it originally was before, the transcriptions and missing pieces, there are numerous writings left out that were considered part of the bible, and sheer time frame, make it an impossibility for it to be a literal translation.

Well, I agree that a "literal translation" is impossible as soon as you switch languages. As an editor, I understand the concept of selecting a "canon" where some works obviously seem false or do not jibe with others; I don't think it was a crime for the church elders to evaluate texts based on merit and seeming historicity and reject some of the ones that did not seem to fit. But it does makes it hard to seriously say something is a literal translation.

And not "Jesus was the son of "God" who created everything and he came down because when people died they went to this magical realm where they were punished eternally, and that wasn't right, so then Jesus went to this realm, and got all the people out and then took them and himself to another magical realm where everyone is eternally happy and content. He also taught people on earth how to get to this magical realm by denying everything on earth that is enjoyable, and expecting people to pay them for telling them this."

You should probably canvass a variety of Christians to get a sense of the general beliefs here; your description is patently not the mainstream, and especially nowadays with the "Emerging Church," which considers Jesus' ministry in context of the here and now... how the Kingdom of Heaven occurs in how we relate to each other. Your paragraph just gets more and more biased as it nears completion.

How is this any more plausible than any of what is now called mythology?

Oh, there's a large difference in the Norse and Greek myths and the books of Genesis, as compared to the New Testament writings. Contextual criticism wouldn't lump them as the same type of literature as all.

This is why science and religion will never meet, science is based in reality in observable reality while religion is based in superstition on subjective experiences and internal states of being.

Fixed!

 

[Opivy1980]

Here is an example of the uncertainty of the claim of Jesus being the "Son of God"-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God

So according to the bible now it does say that he did say he was and implied it but historically the question remains. So I guess I was wrong in saying 100% this is true, however there still is compelling evidence that this idea came about after his death.

Here is proof of Mary Magdalene being the first Christian priest and not Peter-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary_Magdalene

Now on the the fact that you think reality can be something that isn't observed:

reality:1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.
4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
5. Philosophy.
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
6. something that is real.
7. something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.
—Idiom
8. in reality, in fact or truth; actually: brave in appearance, but in reality a coward.

So reality has to be observable otherwise it isn't reality.

superstition: 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

So religious "faith" is superstition by this definition.

both of these are from dictionary.com

Now here is proof of the bible being mythology:
Greek Mythology and The Bible
Bible Mythology
Challenge to Christians
So while the bible might have used historical backdrop as a setting, it doesn't change the fact that it is myth. For example the Oracle at Delphi was used in myth but actually did exist, there is physical evidence of it. Now did she actually speak to the gods and did demigods visit her for inspiration and direction on quests, I doubt it, so how is that any different than what Christians believe about the bible?

 

[sdalek]

Comments on the site? (As in the actual content, not just one's opinion of the Bible?)

Besides, well, Christians differ on how they view the Bible. Some view it as "error-free," inerrant, and inspired in a completely divine sense; others read them more as "natural documents" like any other document, that still have value and contain deep wisdom.

(Note: Some of the error lists floating around contain criticisms that are erroneous from the skeptical side -- they misconstrue or distort what a particular passage was actually saying, such as the infamous phrase "four corners/ends of the earth" -- Doh, this doesn't mean the Bible is saying the world is flat, it's called a metaphor! -- but all of that's besides the point.)

I'm sorry, you're right. My original comment was not directed at the Bible though, it was directed at their interpretation that the Bible was "error-free" which, based on my readings, I don't believe which is why I made the comment. To be honest, being very extremely skeptical when it comes to dealing with religion (something that I learned from both my mother and grandfather), when I was reading the FAQ about the site, the people that created, and it's contents, the "error-free" comment just did me in.:steam:

However, after reading your comment I went back and took another look. While I still view their site skeptically, the one thing that really struck me is their attempt to marry up Big-bang theory (or whatever the current prevalent creation theory is) with creation from the Bible. While I have always questioned the issue of time as presented in the Bible i.e. how do we know that a day for God is the same as a day for man? I have to agree with Opivy1980 in that science and religion probably cannot be joined because they are opposing philosophical systems with opposite operating systems and he states the argument well enough.

I did find it interesting that they provided quite a bit of content as sound-files. A very "scientific" approach to presenting information instead of as the written work however that mean that you have to listen very carefully to what is being said and a very useful tool to make it harder to be able to argue with then since you can't easily pick out the quote(s) that is(are) troublesome. A transcript would probably have been better.

Beyond that, I can't really comment more except that while I admire their attempt to join the two, they really shouldn't. Being an SJ traditionalist , I think they should've left well enough alone and focused more in Biblical history and interpretation in the proper context of the times that it was written in.

 

[sdalek]

(btw, posting this was Crowsie's idea... so I absolve myself of any responsibility, either way.)

Hehe, no you don't get off so easily. While you may have fallen for Crowsie's feminine wiles, you bit the bait and are gonna have to chew it; Welcome to the club.:yim_rolling_on_the_

P.S.: Besides, admit it. You REALLY did want to do it, were unsure, and she simply provided the additional motivation for you to follow through. So you see, it really isn't a bad thing, you end up getting a bit more flavor out of the bite of life you took than you normally would've. Think of it as the zesty seasoning you were missing in your life.

 

[Totenkindly]

So according to the bible now it does say that he did say he was and implied it but historically the question remains. So I guess I was wrong in saying 100% this is true, however there still is compelling evidence that this idea came about after his death.

You know, you're not making much sense with that answer whatsoever: It sounds like a hedge to me.

Here is proof of Mary Magdalene being the first Christian priest and not Peter-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary_Magdalene

I'm not Catholic, so I don't think in terms of "priests" nor do I see the need to label any of them as such. They were disciples to me. Again, a sign of the great variety within Christian traditions, so you really need to consider that when you make blanket statements..

Now on the the fact that you think reality can be something that isn't observed:
reality:1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.
4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
5. Philosophy.
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
6. something that is real.
7. something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.
Idiom
8. in reality, in fact or truth; actually: brave in appearance, but in reality a coward.
So reality has to be observable otherwise it isn't reality.

Nice rhetoric.

Why do I care what a dictionary says about "Real"? Personally, I consider real to mean "what is actually true," not "what is verifiably true." And my point is neither you NOR I can comment on what lies outside the observable fields of knowledge. Subjective experiences might offer us personal revelation that is sufficient to sway our own opinions, but cannot categorically be used to convince others who do not share the same points of reference...

superstition: 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.
So religious "faith" is superstition by this definition.

I think in a discussion, using a negatively loaded word like "superstition" is a foolish way to proceed. It makes you sound like you're holding a bias; thus you end up only communicating with people who already agree with you, and turn off those who do not, and thus there's not much point in engaging in the first place. Does that make sense? I've seen you proceed similarly elsewhere... your style seems far more interested in winning the argument than actually learning something new.

both of these are from dictionary.com

Yes, that bastion of absolute universal truth.

So while the bible might have used historical backdrop as a setting, it doesn't change the fact that it is myth. For example the Oracle at Delphi was used in myth but actually did exist, there is physical evidence of it. Now did she actually speak to the gods and did demigods visit her for inspiration and direction on quests, I doubt it, so how is that any different than what Christians believe about the bible?

Do some serious reading, if you really care to. You can't lump a book that covers 1500 years into one simple literature category. It's a very naive way to proceed, so I get the impression you already had your conclusion figured out when you entered this field. People with years of formal training and study (much more than either of us) debate the Bible's "historicity" to a much deeper degree than we're doing here; obviously the arguments go far deeper than anything you've glossed over and seem completely satisfied with.

I guess this is a thread derail. Oh well.

Hehe, no you don't get off so easily. While you may have fallen for Crowsie's feminine wiles, you bit the bait and are gonna have to chew it; Welcome to the club.

Crowsie! That tramp set me up! I knew it!

P.S.: Besides, admit it. You REALLY did want to do it, were unsure, and she simply provided the additional motivation for you to follow through. So you see, it really isn't a bad thing, you end up getting a bit more flavor out of the bite of life you took than you normally would've. Think of it as the zesty seasoning you were missing in your life.

Yes. (and next, I plan to be beaten with rubber hoses while snorting oregano! Wheee!)

 

[sdalek]

Yes. (and next, I plan to be beaten with rubber hoses while snorting oregano! Wheee!)

Can I help?

"Oooooooooh! Oooooooooh, oooooooooh! Oooooooooh! Pick me, pick me!"

 

[Totenkindly]

Can I help?
"Oooooooooh! Oooooooooh, oooooooooh! Oooooooooh! Pick me, pick me!"

All right -- go to the fields and pick me five baskets full of oregano, and do not return until dark! (And if you do not return with enough oregano, there shall be no flogging!)

 

[sdalek]

All right -- go to the fields and pick me five baskets full of oregano, and do not return until dark! (And if you do not return with enough oregano, there shall be no flogging!)

ALRIGHT!

 

[Opivy1980]

You know, you're not making much sense with that answer whatsoever: It sounds like a hedge to me.

I was conceding that it isn't known one way or the other whether he did or didn't since no primary source from the time period exists, however based on historical context, it was known that the disciples said it far more often than Jesus did, according to primary sources from them, letters they sent to people they were trying to convert and such.

I'm not Catholic, so I don't think in terms of "priests" nor do I see the need to label any of them as such. They were disciples to me. Again, a sign of the great variety within Christian traditions, so you really need to consider that when you make blanket statements..

I don't care whether or not you call them priests or not, Jesus called himself a rabbi, my point is that there is evidence Jesus 1st disciple was Mary Magdalene and that the other male disciples couldn't handle it, especially Peter and that is why she was removed from the bible as a prominent figure.

Nice rhetoric.

Why do I care what a dictionary says about "Real"? Personally, I consider real to mean "what is actually true," not "what is verifiably true." And my point is neither you NOR I can comment on what lies outside the observable fields of knowledge. Subjective experiences might offer us personal revelation that is sufficient to sway our own opinions, but cannot categorically be used to convince others who do not share the same points of reference...

I don't care how you decide to define a word, the English language has survived because there is a consensus on what a word means, otherwise we don't have a language if the words are definable in any way we choose.

I think in a discussion, using a negatively loaded word like "superstition" is a foolish way to proceed. It makes you sound like you're holding a bias; thus you end up only communicating with people who already agree with you, and turn off those who do not, and thus there's not much point in engaging in the first place. Does that make sense? I've seen you proceed similarly elsewhere... your style seems far more interested in winning the argument than actually learning something new.

You can call it negatively charged, but how to other religions describe each other especially, "primitive" ones as superstitious, time to turn the mirror back on yourself.

If someone wanted to say something "new" then I would be willing to consider it, so far all I have heard are arguments I have heard before. So I am responding to them in the ways I have determined to be logical, if you think I am close minded then show me something I haven't considered before and I will ponder it and see how it actually relates to logic and whether or not it makes sense.

Yes, that bastion of absolute universal truth.

Do some serious reading, if you really care to. You can't lump a book that covers 1500 years into one simple literature category. It's a very naive way to proceed, so I get the impression you already had your conclusion figured out when you entered this field. People with years of formal training and study (much more than either of us) debate the Bible's "historicity" to a much deeper degree than we're doing here; obviously the arguments go far deeper than anything you've glossed over and seem completely satisfied with.

First of all, I was a history major in school, and I understand "historicity" of something quite well. The Old Testament was written, 300 years after Israelites came to Greece, it was originally written in Greek, and therefore is not a primary source due to the fact that it was written after the time it was chronicling. The same can be said about the New Testament, the first recorded copy with it in it is from the 4th or 5th century, so again not a primary source.

Did you read any of the proof I provided? There is compelling evidence for the bible being a collection of myths, especially the Old Testament, check into ancient Sumerian and Mesopotamian myth you will see quite a few parallels between the two.

None of the ideas I am expressing are mine alone, many other historians have come to these conclusions based on the facts, no one yet has been able to refute without question, that the bible is anything more than a collection of parables designed to help a society get along better together. There are cultural, political, and religious stories and laws in it. So there are some historical uses for the bible in studying a culture as they saw themselves, but as a literal historical document, that is just ridiculous.[/quote]

 

[reason]

It turns out that I do have more to add.

Opivy1980 may be remarkably ignorant and irrational, but he or she does make one interesting claim; the interesting claim being that religion and science are opposites. Now, Opivy1980 attempts to "prove" this using two principles which are patently not opposites, but the particular argument can be disregarded here. Let us just assume that 1980 is not Opivy's birthdate, that he or she is still a teenager, just discovered Ayn Rand and got a little carried away.

Okay, the question is what exactly makes a religion religious? As opposed to mythic, scientific, metaphysical, ideological, etc. There seem to be a whole range of utterly inadequate demarcational criterions, such as 'belief in the supernatural,' 'dogmatic belief,' to the vulgar 'not reality-based.' None that I am aware of does a sufficient job, since they all seem to allow too little, or too much in the door.

Before we begin making sweeping pronouncements about religion and science, we had better make sure our definition doesn't make our science religious, our religion scientific, or define out of existence either one, the other, or both. (The difficulty is exposed by the highschool kid who appeals to his "religion" in an attempt to avoid partaking in some unwanted task).

I have put a great deal of thought into the issue, yet cannot reach a satisfactory answer. I am beginning to think that there is no demarcation worth making, and that some "religious" belief sets are rational, liberal and scientific, whereas others are irrational, authoritarian and unscientific, and almost any combination thereof. The whole distinction between religious and nonreligious beliefs seems quite superfluous.

 

[rivercrow]

A number of heated posts moved here.

 

[Totenkindly]

I was conceding that it isn't known one way or the other whether he did or didn't since no primary source from the time period exists, however based on historical context, it was known that the disciples said it far more often than Jesus did, according to primary sources from them, letters they sent to people they were trying to convert and such.

I still have a sneaking suspicion you've confined yourself to a particular subset of books about Christianity, due to personal prior bias (I am not sure if you are aware of your tone, but you consistently sound like you have an underlying emotional bias going on here against Christianity).

Just to be clear, I grew up within Christianity but am currently WAY undecided about my faith, due to my own criticisms of what beliefs are involved and what can be said with certainty vs. not said with any certainty. I feel like I have been cast in the role of the "mainsteam Christian" position because you are much further on the anti-side... but if you're going to picture my actual stance in your mind, you should consider it more "agnostic."

I don't care whether or not you call them priests or not, Jesus called himself a rabbi,

Doesn't rabbi mean "teacher" -- not a priest per se -- and aren't those different things?

The writer of Hebrews (anonymous) compares Jesus to Melchizadek, a mysterious priest figure from the Old Testament who is seemingly the representative mediator priest and a supposed foreshadowing of Jesus. But I don't remember off-hand that Jesus refers to himself as a priest, merely as "God's son" and/or equivalent to God (he calls himself "I Am" at one point -- that means little to us nowadays, but was very blasphemous stuff to the Jews at the time, Jesus was calling himself Yahweh!).

It might be a small point; but since I have no good way to evaluate your very very broad statements (there's little to react again), it weakens your credibility in my eyes in terms of background knowledge of what you are criticizing, so I'm not inclined to just accept your other statements.

my point is that there is evidence Jesus 1st disciple was Mary Magdalene and that the other male disciples couldn't handle it, especially Peter and that is why she was removed from the bible as a prominent figure.

That's complete conjecture on your part. Every so often, another such "theory" is floated in the press like some new wonderful revelation, making a splash, and a few years later it fades away without much impact on anything whatsoever. (Are you going to quote Dan Brown next?)

If you'd to give a VARIETY of sources for such a supposition, feel free -- and I would hope they are sources that would cover a spectrum of scholars (from the conversatives to the liberals).

The four gospels, by the way, usually refer to women in very positive terms and as exemplars of faith. Progressive for the time, at least.

I don't care how you decide to define a word, the English language has survived because there is a consensus on what a word means, otherwise we don't have a language if the words are definable in any way we choose.

Yes, I see. You're the defender of the English language now... which has what bearing exactly on this discussion?

You're claiming only that the observable is real. I'm saying that the observable is a subset of the real (and it could even be the totality of the real, true, if it's really "all there is"), and that the real includes both the observable and the unobservable... and that the unobservable unfortunately isn't really open to the scientific method and could be only discovered by process of revelation. (In that sense, it's an "irrational" process.) THat's what we were discussing.

You know, we're trying to get on common ground here, so we can both understand what each other is saying. People who want to converse usually say, "Oh, I see now what you mean; I don't particularly refer to it that way or might use different words, but okay, here's my issue with your supposition... etc."

Instead, you just dicker with me about the dictionary definition. That doesn't give me a good feeling about the validity of your viewpoint.

You can call it negatively charged, but how to other religions describe each other especially, "primitive" ones as superstitious, time to turn the mirror back on yourself.

Excuse me -- Did I do that? Or are you lumping me into a category without bothering to figure out what category I'm in first? You apparently are reading a LOT into my comments.

If someone wanted to say something "new" then I would be willing to consider it, so far all I have heard are arguments I have heard before. So I am responding to them in the ways I have determined to be logical, if you think I am close minded then show me something I haven't considered before and I will ponder it and see how it actually relates to logic and whether or not it makes sense.

I'd suggest actually going into things with an open mind and seeing why lots of scholars might actually approach scripture differently than you do.

I was just in Borders picking up a title on the development of the church (and Christian doctrine) from the time of Christ until today [I am currently exploring what views are held today in Christian doctrine that actually evolved over time, rather than being held by the original members of the faith] and there was an entire row of books there, any of which could help give you a broader viewpoint. I don't need to list them all for you, you need to make some sort of effort on your own.

(I would wager that not all of the scholars represented there are complete imbeciles or stooges or proselytizers -- I'm betting a fair number could probably argue circles around both you and me in regards to these topics.) So go look, if you're interested.

First of all, I was a history major in school, and I understand "historicity" of something quite well. The Old Testament was written, 300 years after Israelites came to Greece, it was originally written in Greek, and therefore is not a primary source due to the fact that it was written after the time it was chronicling.

Hmmm, I see. The Old Testament scriptures were written in Greek (the Septuagint, I assume you mean?) and then translated into Hebrew.

The Septuagint (IPA: ['sɛptuədʒɪnt]), or simply "LXX", is the name commonly given in the West to the Koine Greek version of the Old Testament, translated in stages between the 3rd to 1st century BC in Alexandria.
It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. The name means "seventy" in Latin and derives from a tradition that seventy-two Hellenized Jewish scholars (LXX being the nearest round number) translated the Pentateuch (or Torah) from Hebrew into Greek for one of the Ptolemaic kings, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285-246 BC. As the work of translation went on gradually, and new books were added to the collection, the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite. The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon; but the prophetic collection changed its aspect by having various hagiographa incorporated into it. Some of the newer works, those called anagignoskomena in Greek, are not included in the Hebrew canon. Among these books are Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the LXX version of some works, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than the Hebrew.[1] Several of the later books apparently were composed in Greek....

You can take it up with wikipedia.

The same can be said about the New Testament, the first recorded copy with it in it is from the 4th or 5th century, so again not a primary source.

Curiouser and curiouser....

Most critical scholars agree on the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e., those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). For the Gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65 and no later than 75. Matthew is dated between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed within 80 to 95. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest...

To give you the benefit of a doubt, I am going to assume you mean a "compiled copy of the New Testament" rather than the individual books, which were all written at different times and passed around and transcribed on numerous occasions and eventually became a canon that was codified sometime in the mid/late-300's ... although it was informally accepted before that.

Did you read any of the proof I provided? There is compelling evidence for the bible being a collection of myths, especially the Old Testament, check into ancient Sumerian and Mesopotamian myth you will see quite a few parallels between the two.

I've actually read some of these myths. There's still argument apparently over what preceded what, whether something is truly derivative or simply developing on parallel tracks, and so forth.

As I've said, some of the writing of the OT IS very mythic in nature, or a moralistic story (such as Job or Jonah -- both seem to be satire describing extreme situations in order to make a point). But why on earth are you lumping Proverbs (a book of wisdom) and 1&2 Kings /Chronicles (history books) and other books together into the "myth" category. If you didn't mean to, you should clarify -- you refer to the Bible [i.e., the WHOLE Bible] to be a collection of myths, and don't make any mention of the non-mythic elements. Do you really mean to do that?

None of the ideas I am expressing are mine alone, many other historians have come to these conclusions based on the facts...

Yes, the veritable "cast of thousands" who support your viewpoint. I stand corrected. (And the "countless other historians" -- whee, I can do this too! -- who disagree with your anonymous cast apparently are hacks?)

... no one yet has been able to refute without question, that the bible is anything more than a collection of parables designed to help a society get along better together. There are cultural, political, and religious stories and laws in it. So there are some historical uses for the bible in studying a culture as they saw themselves, but as a literal historical document, that is just ridiculous.

Well, I never said every jot and tittle of the Bible was a literal historical document, nor do I think any serious scholars (even the conservative ones you seem to lump in with the fundamentalists!) say such things. It's obvious that the different books comprise many different forms of literature. I just wish you'd take a finer-toothed comb to your research and delineate more clearly between what seems plausible and what doesn't, rather than making sweeping criticisms that weaken themselves.

 

[Opivy1980]

All quotes from Jennifer

"I still have a sneaking suspicion you've confined yourself to a particular subset of books about Christianity, due to personal prior bias (I am not sure if you are aware of your tone, but you consistently sound like you have an underlying emotional bias going on here against Christianity)."

My bias is against anything that purports to know something without providing proof. Christianity just happens to be what the website in question was about.

"Doesn't rabbi mean "teacher" -- not a priest per se -- and aren't those different things?"

Yes it does mean teacher my point was that the term priest hadn't been around for Christianity until after Jesus' death, frankly it doesn't really change the argument at all what you call Jesus' followers.

"The writer of Hebrews (anonymous) compares Jesus to Melchizadek, a mysterious priest figure from the Old Testament who is seemingly the representative mediator priest and a supposed foreshadowing of Jesus. But I don't remember off-hand that Jesus refers to himself as a priest, merely as "God's son" and/or equivalent to God (he calls himself "I Am" at one point -- that means little to us nowadays, but was very blasphemous stuff to the Jews at the time, Jesus was calling himself Yahweh!)."

Again this is still in question as to how he referred to himself, for the most part the bible contains situations where Jesus let the observer make the decision as to what to call him. Absence of denial doesn't necessarily mean truth.

"It might be a small point; but since I have no good way to evaluate your very very broad statements (there's little to react again), it weakens your credibility in my eyes in terms of background knowledge of what you are criticizing, so I'm not inclined to just accept your other statements."

I would never expect anyone to accept anything anyone says on blind faith, That is my point.

"That's complete conjecture on your part. Every so often, another such "theory" is floated in the press like some new wonderful revelation, making a splash, and a few years later it fades away without much impact on anything whatsoever. (Are you going to quote Dan Brown next?)"

I would never quote a fiction writer like Dan Brown in an argument like this, I find that insulting. As far as conjecture no, there is a primary document called the Gospel of Mary, that states the situation. There have also been documentaries on the subject done by National Geographic and The History Channel. Numerous books have covered the subject before Dan Brown as well including Holy Blood, Holy Grail one of the better ones.

"If you'd to give a VARIETY of sources for such a supposition, feel free -- and I would hope they are sources that would cover a spectrum of scholars (from the conversatives to the liberals)."

This is impossible due to one reason, anyone who identifies themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" are both working toward certain bias in the facts inherently. Now if you want to argue I have a bias by quoting sources such as wikipedia that cover both ends then you can, but taken at face value, the facts speak for themselves.


"The four gospels, by the way, usually refer to women in very positive terms and as exemplars of faith. Progressive for the time, at least."

But not in positions of power, which is how Mary Magdalene is portrayed in the Gospel of Mary. That is what threatened the others, Peter in particular, he couldn't rectify the idea that Jesus gave more knowledge to a woman than to a man, particularly himself.

"You're claiming only that the observable is real. I'm saying that the observable is a subset of the real (and it could even be the totality of the real, true, if it's really "all there is"), and that the real includes both the observable and the unobservable... and that the unobservable unfortunately isn't really open to the scientific method and could be only discovered by process of revelation. (In that sense, it's an "irrational" process.) THat's what we were discussing."

You just made my point about reality, if reality is defined as something that can be observed as it is in the definition of the word, how can you say that there are other kinds of reality? If we can make definitions of words mean whatever we want, then we no longer have a language to communicate in, just groups of symbols that can be used to express anything randomly.

"You know, we're trying to get on common ground here, so we can both understand what each other is saying. People who want to converse usually say, "Oh, I see now what you mean; I don't particularly refer to it that way or might use different words, but okay, here's my issue with your supposition... etc."

That isn't how I communicate, I want you to prove your case, just because I understand the words you are saying and have already considered your positions in the past, doesn't mean I have to say so. I came to the conclusion that those ideas were wrong for the reasons I am stating, I want you to tell me something I didn't know or consider when making my decision, saying I understand what you mean is a pointless statement, used by people who want to pretend that there are many different interpretations of everything. I disagree some things are either right or wrong, religion versus science happens to be one of those.

"Excuse me -- Did I do that? Or are you lumping me into a category without bothering to figure out what category I'm in first? You apparently are reading a LOT into my comments."

See first paragraph.

"I'd suggest actually going into things with an open mind and seeing why lots of scholars might actually approach scripture differently than you do."

I do have an open mind when something new comes into the picture, however when I am being asked to consider the same points that I have already processed and analyzed, then I expect new information regarding those points.

"Hmmm, I see. The Old Testament scriptures were written in Greek (the Septuagint, I assume you mean?) and then translated into Hebrew."

What I meant by this is the original document of the Torah, the Old Testament, has never been recovered, so the oldest copy of it we have is in Greek, so yet again not a primary source. Now I do understand that a primary source from that time period is a nearly impossible find, but then at the same time everything written in secondary and tertiary sources cannot be regarded as literal or even guaranteed correct interpretation of what the author meant. This argument is the same for the New Testament, while a secondary source, it was written about someone after their life. I will concede that it is older than I what I originally thought though.

"To give you the benefit of a doubt, I am going to assume you mean a "compiled copy of the New Testament" rather than the individual books, which were all written at different times and passed around and transcribed on numerous occasions and eventually became a canon that was codified sometime in the mid/late-300's ... although it was informally accepted before that."

That wasn't how I interpreted what I learned earlier but that could be what was meant when I originally researched this. Either way I was still wrong.

"I've actually read some of these myths. There's still argument apparently over what preceded what, whether something is truly derivative or simply developing on parallel tracks, and so forth."

So you say there is argument of what preceded what when the Sumerian culture is the oldest recorded civilization in history? Which was followed by the Mesopotamian one which is where Abraham came from to start the Caananite one? Anyone who can look at a timeline wouldn't make that argument.

"As I've said, some of the writing of the OT IS very mythic in nature, or a moralistic story (such as Job or Jonah -- both seem to be satire describing extreme situations in order to make a point). But why on earth are you lumping Proverbs (a book of wisdom) and 1&2 Kings /Chronicles (history books) and other books together into the "myth" category. If you didn't mean to, you should clarify -- you refer to the Bible [i.e., the WHOLE Bible] to be a collection of myths, and don't make any mention of the non-mythic elements. Do you really mean to do that?"

As I stated in a previous post the bible was a cultural book used to help the Caananites get along better with each other. This included myth, laws, proverbs, social rules, etc. This refers only to the Old Testament, the New Testament was inherently different as more of an actual religious document and used for one purpose, religion. It starts as a biography, which is used to lay the foundation, then it shows how to follow the person in the biography. The best comparison I can make to this would be Siddartha.