Proof the Bible is not the Word of God: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Proof the Bible is not the Word of God » Proof the Bible is not the Word of God

Proof the Bible is not the Word of God

Page: 1 2 3 4

Proof the Bible is not the Word of God

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 223

Posted 05/17/08 - 11:48 AM:	#51
mric wrote: I think your answer supports my point precisely. You are saying that the Bible is not sufficiently persuasive or impactful to to be interpreted positively unless you already believe in its god. There are many documents, plays and novels that are incredibly powerful whatever you believe about their authors - what is it about God that meant he was not able to to produce a Bible that effectively communicated his messages to non-believers? The "nonsense" parts would be the injunctions against shellfish, the statements of the imminent destruction of the world written 2 millennia ago, etc. However, there is also a large amount of stylistic and narrative nonsense (and I agree that is a subjective statement). However, my and others' subjective aesthetic problems are themselves objective facts, and indications that the book is not uniformly well written. I can't imagine many literary analysts agreeing with the following: "“We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God....” — Westminster Confession, 1647. Indeed, your response admits as such - the fact that I "just don't get it" is a strong indication that the Bible isn't very good at convincingly communicating its message. A surprising weakness if it is the work of God.... If I may, I think it is clear that the Bible is not the direct word of God, it was not written by his hand, but is the word of God written by man. I by no means am an expert but that is my understanding of it, God is not the author. Saying that for a religion based on faith I don't think one could expect the bible to be a book of such a compelling nature as to remove all doubt. I do wonder though, honestly how often the bible is read objectively by someone that does not believe in God and not just as tool of religion. Despite what may be deemed imperfections in the literary design of the book, if read solely as a piece of literature I would love to know of the books, comparable in their depth of understanding of the world and human nature, despite the eloquence of the delivery. I mean that from the point of view that the bible is a part of the fabric of western civilization and beyond, laws, morals, language etc. To go against most of what I would consider a christian way of life, would be to go against sense. If the bible were to be a book solely the fabrication of men, I can only imagine they are not congratulated for their genius by atheists because it is difficult to see past God and the influence of the church. I honesty find it very curious.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy

georgeT
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/17/08 - 10:13 PM:	#52
well said Techeth though I might add to mric that actual if you ask most literary analysts they may not agree that it is the word of god but they would say that it's a well know fact that the literary community acknowledge the Bibles textual integrity often comparing it to shakespear. As a text the Bible is recognised as great piece of art. mric said -the fact that I "just don't get it" is a strong indication that the Bible isn't very good at convincingly communicating its message- I don't think the Bible is meant to convince you, thats not what it's for. Technically all it is, is a history book. It doesn't try and convert people or convince people of God it simply states a history and a belief and then leaves it up to the reader to decide what they believe. For the Bible to communicate it's message the reader has to be prepared to listen, it's not going to convince them to listen or even to believe. I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of christianity, not that a book convinced you to believe but that you chose to believe without being convinced. Christians believe that god doesn't interfeer with peoples decisions, God might tell people what's right and what's wrong but I don't think he tries to convince you, that would defeat the purpose of people being able to chose. Plus God doesn't need you to believe and God definitely wouldn't want to trick people into believing. So of course the bible isn't going to communicate much of a message to anyone that fiercely doesn't want to listen, so if you do want to know if it does communicate a message you'd have to ask someone who wants to listen and wants to believe.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1511

Posted 05/18/08 - 05:00 AM:	#53
Techeth wrote: Despite what may be deemed imperfections in the literary design of the book, if read solely as a piece of literature I would love to know of the books, comparable in their depth of understanding of the world and human nature, despite the eloquence of the delivery. I mean that from the point of view that the bible is a part of the fabric of western civilization and beyond, laws, morals, language etc. To go against most of what I would consider a christian way of life, would be to go against sense. If the bible were to be a book solely the fabrication of men, I can only imagine they are not congratulated for their genius by atheists because it is difficult to see past God and the influence of the church. I honesty find it very curious. This is an example of something I like to call "language freezing". It happens when some document becomes bound to a language. The document becomes the standard for that language and sounds "eloquent" to the listener. The same thing happened with Classical Arabic and the Koran ... and many more. English "froze" around some 16/17th Century translations of the Bible -- as it had already done with Latin, Greek and Hebrew. It is purely subjective experience. There are plenty of courses on "The Bible as Literature" and its influence. I don't think there is much to talk about with "genius". Most of western civilization can be traced back to pagan origins, rather than the Bible's middle-eastern cultures. It surprises me how much our culture forces the interpretation of the Bible into the readers cultural context. For example, when Jesus says "blessed are the meek" -- who are the "meek"? Most people seem to interpret it as people who are socially meek. However, from the context, he might have been talking about the weaker Jewish nation -- and that the blessing was actually a promise of divine aid to overthrow the Romans in time, (and confirms some of his later attitudes and actions).
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 05/18/08 - 07:17 AM:	#54
georgeT wrote: well said Techeth though I might add to mric that actual if you ask most literary analysts they may not agree that it is the word of god but they would say that it's a well know fact that the literary community acknowledge the Bibles textual integrity often comparing it to shakespear. As a text the Bible is recognised as great piece of art. mric said -the fact that I "just don't get it" is a strong indication that the Bible isn't very good at convincingly communicating its message- I don't think the Bible is meant to convince you, thats not what it's for. Technically all it is, is a history book. It doesn't try and convert people or convince people of God it simply states a history and a belief and then leaves it up to the reader to decide what they believe. For the Bible to communicate it's message the reader has to be prepared to listen, it's not going to convince them to listen or even to believe. I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of christianity, not that a book convinced you to believe but that you chose to believe without being convinced. Christians believe that god doesn't interfeer with peoples decisions, God might tell people what's right and what's wrong but I don't think he tries to convince you, that would defeat the purpose of people being able to chose. Plus God doesn't need you to believe and God definitely wouldn't want to trick people into believing. So of course the bible isn't going to communicate much of a message to anyone that fiercely doesn't want to listen, so if you do want to know if it does communicate a message you'd have to ask someone who wants to listen and wants to believe. It is a fascinating position - you can only believe in things if you want to believe in them. What is the moral merit in wanting to believe? Why would the rewards of faith be only accessible to those with a psychological tendency towards credulity? I have never understood why believing in something without good reason is more blessed than believing in something with good reason. Of course, you have to start with the view that all those who do not find the messages convincing had set their faces against God's word. From personal experience that isn't the case - in fact it was the process of going through bible studies courses and reading around religion in preparation for my Confirmation that started my personal move away from Christianity. I don't believe that my experience is remotely unusual. Therefore, in order to believe the position you have put forward you need to believe some rather odd things. Not only has God designed his message with exactly the right amount of convincingness to sift the righteous from the unrighteous (irrespective of background culture, education or parental religion), but also millions of people who have moved away from Christianity consistently lie about and misrepresent their motives. For if, as they (and I) claim, we did desire to believe, but found that the more we learnt of Christianity and religious thought the less we believed, then you have a problem with the interpretation of the Bible and the Christian message as being suitably effective with the willing believer. As an aside, I am fascinated by this phrase that keeps popping up in religious discussion about 'choosing to believe'. I must admit, I entirely fail to understand it. Belief is not a choice. Listening, reading, studying, thinking, analysing, observing - these are done voluntarily, and then your beliefs follow (also driven by your emotional predispositions, attitudes, capabilities and other beliefs).

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1532

Posted 05/18/08 - 09:57 AM:	#55
mric wrote: It is a fascinating position - you can only believe in things if you want to believe in them. What is the moral merit in wanting to believe? Why would the rewards of faith be only accessible to those with a psychological tendency towards credulity? I have never understood why believing in something without good reason is more blessed than believing in something with good reason. … As an aside, I am fascinated by this phrase that keeps popping up in religious discussion about 'choosing to believe'. I must admit, I entirely fail to understand it. Belief is not a choice. Listening, reading, studying, thinking, analysing, observing - these are done voluntarily, and then your beliefs follow (also driven by your emotional predispositions, attitudes, capabilities and other beliefs). I think that belief and faith really means surrender of one’s own individual will to what is presented as the will of God, and the will of God is all about behavior guidelines. In the end it’s actually a moral issue. It’s about committing to behavior guidelines regarding what are generally considered to be the most important human concerns--birth, death, sex, food, property, behavior toward the deity. I can’t help but think that this surrender of the personal individual will to the will of God is a metaphor for surrender to the good of the group, to the good of the community. Thus, belief and faith can be construed to be a “decision” in that it is an acceptance of and agreement with and commitment to abide by the rules, to adhere to the morality of the faith community--the brotherhood of Jesus, the body of Christ, the family of Father God. Note how this contrasts radically with the individualistic, socially disintegrating consequences of the evil of “following Satan” and all his destructive efforts. “Sin” is behavior that is dysfunctional to and disintegrative to the group. And the greatest sin is to categorically reject God, because this means to categorically reject commitment to the morality, to reject commitment to the community rules. Such an uncommitted person is a loose cannon in that society, unpredictable, and a potential threat to one and all, far more likely to behave in ways that will have destructive, dysfunctional consequences for the group. Note the emphasis in Christianity on the Ten Commandments and on the Sermon on the Mount,--behavior guidelines. The propositional content of any given religion is a wild card. The dogma is fill-in-the-blank nonsense, not only wholly implausible, but sometimes downright unintelligible. The dominating issue really is the morality—the behavior guidelines. And it is to these that a person can decide to commit or decide to reject or to ignore. Note how typical it is for theists to address their concern that atheists have no reason to behave morally, how commonly theists express their prediction that an atheist society would fall apart into total chaos in no time, how often theists claim that it is those who remain faithful to God’s moral guidelines that are holding our society together. Note also the high percentage of people who are concerned with Morality and Ethics in Philosophy who also are committed religious believers. Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 223

Posted 05/18/08 - 01:38 PM:	#56
swstephe wrote: This is an example of something I like to call "language freezing". It happens when some document becomes bound to a language. The document becomes the standard for that language and sounds "eloquent" to the listener. The same thing happened with Classical Arabic and the Koran ... and many more. English "froze" around some 16/17th Century translations of the Bible -- as it had already done with Latin, Greek and Hebrew. It is purely subjective experience. I must admit I am not sure what your point is, what is purely subjective? I fear you are discussing the literary eloquence of the bible, how it was written, where as I am discussing the content. swstephe wrote: There are plenty of courses on "The Bible as Literature" and its influence. I don't think there is much to talk about with "genius". Most of western civilization can be traced back to pagan origins, rather than the Bible's middle-eastern cultures. It surprises me how much our culture forces the interpretation of the Bible into the readers cultural context. For example, when Jesus says "blessed are the meek" -- who are the "meek"? Most people seem to interpret it as people who are socially meek. However, from the context, he might have been talking about the weaker Jewish nation -- and that the blessing was actually a promise of divine aid to overthrow the Romans in time, (and confirms some of his later attitudes and actions). I agree but isn't the point that a book largely set in the middle east has such broad connotations that it has become a staple of western culture. I would imagine it would be considered a stroke of genius if said book was written purely for the self interest of the authors, yet had achieved so much and had done so by remaining relevant to millions of people generations beyond imagination into the future, while being based on a theory that has yet to be disporoved by modern philosophy or science. This to me seems worthy of acclaim by any party examining the book. I wonder, if it was written as a best seller with no religion behind it how would we think of it? Your interpretation of the meek may be right it may not, it may be both.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 223

Posted 05/18/08 - 02:42 PM:	#57
jdrw wrote: I think that belief and faith really means surrender of one’s own individual will to what is presented as the will of God, and the will of God is all about behavior guidelines. In the end it’s actually a moral issue. It’s about committing to behavior guidelines regarding what are generally considered to be the most important human concerns--birth, death, sex, food, property, behavior toward the deity. I can’t help but think that this surrender of the personal individual will to the will of God is a metaphor for surrender to the good of the group, to the good of the community. Thus, belief and faith can be construed to be a “decision” in that it is an acceptance of and agreement with and commitment to abide by the rules, to adhere to the morality of the faith community--the brotherhood of Jesus, the body of Christ, the family of Father God. Note how this contrasts radically with the individualistic, socially disintegrating consequences of the evil of “following Satan” and all his destructive efforts. “Sin” is behavior that is dysfunctional to and disintegrative to the group. And the greatest sin is to categorically reject God, because this means to categorically reject commitment to the morality, to reject commitment to the community rules. Such an uncommitted person is a loose cannon in that society, unpredictable, and a potential threat to one and all, far more likely to behave in ways that will have destructive, dysfunctional consequences for the group. Note the emphasis in Christianity on the Ten Commandments and on the Sermon on the Mount,--behavior guidelines. The propositional content of any given religion is a wild card. The dogma is fill-in-the-blank nonsense, not only wholly implausible, but sometimes downright unintelligible. The dominating issue really is the morality—the behavior guidelines. And it is to these that a person can decide to commit or decide to reject or to ignore. Note how typical it is for theists to address their concern that atheists have no reason to behave morally, how commonly theists express their prediction that an atheist society would fall apart into total chaos in no time, how often theists claim that it is those who remain faithful to God’s moral guidelines that are holding our society together. Note also the high percentage of people who are concerned with Morality and Ethics in Philosophy who also are committed religious believers. Cheers. jd I agree in part, well with the first part, belief and faith are about surrendering one's will, but maybe 'self' is more appropriate. It's like with a child and an adult, as children we often think we know something, we are convinced of it, we can see it with our own eyes and it is true, but then an adult comes along and says no, no its not quite like that. Now we have a choice whether to continue with what we know or have faith, and I mean this in strictest sense of the word. Sometimes and often at the most difficult times a child has to take action uncertain of the outcome based on the advice of another, "blind faith" if you will. For me this is the same as religious faith, one must choose to believe that the advice given is right, that it is true, despite what we may know for ourselves and as with that adults advice, hope to gain an understanding of what we have been told, but, we approach it after having chosen to believe it. For me I am not so sure there is any such thing as "blind faith" people always have reasons to believe what they believe there is always something it seems. I am not convinced that there is a link between surrendering to God and the group, as often in the Bible people are directed by God to act distinctly from the group. Is it not more unpredictable to have someone believe that at any moment especially in times of extreme hardship they may be privately directed to act independently of the group. As I said most of the "guidelines" towards community behaviour in the Bible are agreed upon by most people of any belief, is there not an emphasis on most of the Ten Commandments in most societies, regardless of reason?
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 05/19/08 - 01:27 AM:	#58
Techeth wrote: I agree in part, well with the first part, belief and faith are about surrendering one's will, but maybe 'self' is more appropriate. It's like with a child and an adult, as children we often think we know something, we are convinced of it, we can see it with our own eyes and it is true, but then an adult comes along and says no, no its not quite like that. Now we have a choice whether to continue with what we know or have faith, and I mean this in strictest sense of the word. Sometimes and often at the most difficult times a child has to take action uncertain of the outcome based on the advice of another, "blind faith" if you will. For me this is the same as religious faith, one must choose to believe that the advice given is right, that it is true, despite what we may know for ourselves and as with that adults advice, hope to gain an understanding of what we have been told, but, we approach it after having chosen to believe it. For me I am not so sure there is any such thing as "blind faith" people always have reasons to believe what they believe there is always something it seems. I find the Parent/Child analogy illuminating, but again rather strange. As a parent myself, I do my best to make sure that my instruction and relationship with my children do not have the characteristics apparently shown by the Christian God to humanity. I try to be even-handed in my attention, I try to communicate as clearly and directly as I can on matters of personal safety, I do not let them put their fingers in electrical sockets (literally or morally/metaphorically), I ensure that if they do not feel loved by me that I extend a special effort to communicate and get in touch with them. That last point would suggest that we should expect God's communication to be clearest to those who do not follow him, rather than the idea above that the Bible would be a 'closed book' to those without preexisting faith.

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 223

Posted 05/19/08 - 03:47 AM:	#59
mric wrote: I find the Parent/Child analogy illuminating, but again rather strange. As a parent myself, I do my best to make sure that my instruction and relationship with my children do not have the characteristics apparently shown by the Christian God to humanity. I try to be even-handed in my attention, I try to communicate as clearly and directly as I can on matters of personal safety, I do not let them put their fingers in electrical sockets (literally or morally/metaphorically), I ensure that if they do not feel loved by me that I extend a special effort to communicate and get in touch with them. There is no reason to suggest that God does not do the same, I don't know what you mean by metaphorically sticking our fingers in electrical sockets, but I would say that I imagine you are talking about small children, as the children get older, after what has to be said has been said and said again, eventually the child will make their own decision. Saying that the comparison may fall apart here, as God's influence extends beyond this life time, what may seem as an action or lack of action that results in the loss of life is really only the passing of the tide for God. I would also 'suggest' that that is why God seems so hands on early on in the Bible and less so now. As to your last point some would consider that to be exactly what the Bible is. mric wrote: That last point would suggest that we should expect God's communication to be clearest to those who do not follow him, rather than the idea above that the Bible would be a 'closed book' to those without preexisting faith. Well I think what I'm saying is that we are not born with an understanding of religion, we may be born spiritually minded and so have some understanding of God, but it's through life that we develop our understanding. I suggest that it is through living that God communicates with all of us. I think it’s the Chinese that say "the first step is half the journey" I think in this case believing is that first step, in terms of the book being closed. Saying that I think the book can be read without that belief and there is something to be gained, even if it is not a complete understanding. Yet as I mentioned before for some very curious reason very often it doesn't seem to be.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1511

Posted 05/19/08 - 09:52 PM:	#60
Techeth wrote: I must admit I am not sure what your point is, what is purely subjective? The idea of "eloquence". You are judging the value of a document which happened to be the "gold standard" by which the language is measured because of the value of the document. The value of the Bible as a symbol had preceded the standardization of the language. You think it sounds eloquent because the subjective experience of "eloquence" is measured from highly valued standards of literature -- even after the language has evolved and the cultural impact of the subject matter varies. Teceth wrote: I fear you are discussing the literary eloquence of the bible, how it was written, where as I am discussing the content. No, I'm talking about the linguistic aspect -- which is part of the definition of the word "eloquence". You seem to be talking about the emotional impact of the content. How much of that emotional impact is due to what the Bible symbolizes, rather than the literary content if it hadn't symbolized a particular belief system? Teceth wrote: I agree but isn't the point that a book largely set in the middle east has such broad connotations that it has become a staple of western culture. I would imagine it would be considered a stroke of genius if said book was written purely for the self interest of the authors, yet had achieved so much and had done so by remaining relevant to millions of people generations beyond imagination into the future, while being based on a theory that has yet to be disporoved by modern philosophy or science. This to me seems worthy of acclaim by any party examining the book. I wonder, if it was written as a best seller with no religion behind it how would we think of it? First, the Bible is not the staple of western culture. Western culture inherits much more from pagan and secular sources and even early Christian writings which are not considered part of the Bible. For example, I previously stated that the "10 commandments" were the only "part" of the Bible, (actually an external document), claiming to be the "Word of God", and yet, (around the time of the "10 commandments in the court house" debate), there were many articles which shows, pretty conclusively, that even the 10 commandments are not the foundation of Western laws. There is not a single Western nation where you will be arrested for working on the sabbath, dishonoring your parents, desiring your neighbor's wealth or wife, etc. Every Western nation is founded on some pretty secular philosophies. If a country were to suddenly decide to follow the Bible literally and strictly, they might be considered a "western taliban"). As for relevance to large numbers of people -- yes, the Bible is very popular, always the best-selling document in the world every year. But I am have to insist it is more because it is a symbol of identity for Christians. I observed, as a former Christian, that most people never read the Bible other than to follow along in church. Also, notice that we are talking about a translation, most Christians do not have a copy of the original words, (in Hebrew and Greek) -- although the words used might get mentioned to clarify ideas. I think the Christian community is implicitly declaring that the contents of the Bible or the value of what is written is pretty irrelevant to their lives, compared to the ideas that they share in church. As for the "Bible as Literature" -- I think it is analogous to asking if beer would be a popular drink if it didn't contain alcohol. Would Christians put as much value on the Bible if it didn't represent their identity? As a literary document, there really isn't anything outstanding beyond historical interest. It certainly isn't a compelling piece of literature. Why does the Bible give long list of genealogy? Because it is culturally relevant to people it was addressing, (people in the Middle-East can often recite their genealogy for generations). But is pretty irrelevant to a group of people who believe they inherit their rights through belief or spirituality. The Bible is full of stores that seemed designed to excite the audiences of the time, (which ought to baffle modern readers), with many parallel stories of the younger brother gaining his older brother's inheritance. Stories of incest, deceptive prostitutes, brutal murders and insanity indicate that the author intended to tittilate his audience rather than inspire. Why should a divinely inspired book be written for popularity, (especially when it claims that the majority of humanity will reject it). Also, it is a fallacy to claim that popularity is indicative of anything. Look at the #2 best-selling book of all time, "Mao's Little Red Book of Sayings". Why not claim that this book is also the work of geniuses who were able to produce a book which is relevant to so many? It was certainly much more relevant and accessible to its audience than the Bible is to Christians today. Both the Bible and Mao's book are popular because they are symbols of the people it represents. Had you replaced the contents with a recipe for shrimp gumbo, and everyone agreed that those were the correct contents, they would be just as revered, even if nobody made shrimp gumbo. Teceth wrote: Your interpretation of the meek may be right it may not, it may be both. I'm not claiming either one is "right". Claiming one interpretation is more correct than another is accepting the premise that there was a singular correct interpretation. I think both interpretations were implied by what is being said. But since most modern Christians don't "get" the central message of the Bible -- "Jews rule" -- then they prefer to accept a modern interpretation that Jesus cared or respected meek people, (despite social meekness being condemned several times later on as being "lukewarm" or "unsalty").
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 223

Posted 05/21/08 - 10:30 AM:	#61
swstephe wrote: The idea of "eloquence". You are judging the value of a document which happened to be the "gold standard" by which the language is measured because of the value of the document. The value of the Bible as a symbol had preceded the standardization of the language. You think it sounds eloquent because the subjective experience of "eloquence" is measured from highly valued standards of literature -- even after the language has evolved and the cultural impact of the subject matter varies. Well this may be true but as I said this is not what I'm talking about. I never said I thought the Bible was eloquent, but if I had, then it would be, at least to me. swstephe wrote: No, I'm talking about the linguistic aspect -- which is part of the definition of the word "eloquence". You seem to be talking about the emotional impact of the content. How much of that emotional impact is due to what the Bible symbolizes, rather than the literary content if it hadn't symbolized a particular belief system? What I'm talking about is the books ability to maintain that belief system, the value of its content which I consider to reach beyond a specific group of people. swstephe wrote: First, the Bible is not the staple of western culture. Western culture inherits much more from pagan and secular sources and even early Christian writings which are not considered part of the Bible. For example, I previously stated that the "10 commandments" were the only "part" of the Bible, (actually an external document), claiming to be the "Word of God", and yet, (around the time of the "10 commandments in the court house" debate), there were many articles which shows, pretty conclusively, that even the 10 commandments are not the foundation of Western laws. There is not a single Western nation where you will be arrested for working on the sabbath, dishonoring your parents, desiring your neighbor's wealth or wife, etc. Every Western nation is founded on some pretty secular philosophies. If a country were to suddenly decide to follow the Bible literally and strictly, they might be considered a "western taliban"). Well I never said it was the staple of Western culture, just a staple. If you are to ask people which religion do you most associate with the West, they will not tell you Paganism. Christianity and the Bible I would suggest go hand in hand. Whether or not Western laws were founded on the Ten Commandments which, you may be right they were not means little when you consider they are so similar. You say: "There is not a single Western nation where you will be arrested for working on the sabbath, dishonoring your parents, desiring your neighbor's wealth or wife, etc." Despite the questionable 'etc' there are few Christian countries where as many people work on a Sunday as any other day. Sunday as the day of rest may not be a legal requirement but it is a social expectation. And a day of rest is a legal requirement, I believe it may be even more than one, I am not sure of the exact amount of hours. As for the rest of your example I am pretty sure none of them are considered good practice, anywhere in the world, as far as I know the Ten Commandments do not suggest a punishment for these. swstephe wrote: As for relevance to large numbers of people -- yes, the Bible is very popular, always the best-selling document in the world every year. But I am have to insist it is more because it is a symbol of identity for Christians. I observed, as a former Christian, that most people never read the Bible other than to follow along in church. Also, notice that we are talking about a translation, most Christians do not have a copy of the original words, (in Hebrew and Greek) -- although the words used might get mentioned to clarify ideas. I think the Christian community is implicitly declaring that the contents of the Bible or the value of what is written is pretty irrelevant to their lives, compared to the ideas that they share in church. Yes it is probably because it is a symbol of identity for most Christians, but not in the same way as a cross on a chain, but because of what it says. Even though most never read it at home although many do, that doesn't mean that many do not feel its relevance when in church, or outside, or even assume to know its relevance. I am not sure what you mean by "irrelevant to their lives, compared to the ideas they share in church"? Are these ideas not founded on the Bible they have just read? swstephe wrote: As for the "Bible as Literature" -- I think it is analogous to asking if beer would be a popular drink if it didn't contain alcohol. Would Christians put as much value on the Bible if it didn't represent their identity? As a literary document, there really isn't anything outstanding beyond historical interest. It certainly isn't a compelling piece of literature. Why does the Bible give long list of genealogy? Because it is culturally relevant to people it was addressing, (people in the Middle-East can often recite their genealogy for generations). But is pretty irrelevant to a group of people who believe they inherit their rights through belief or spirituality. The Bible is full of stores that seemed designed to excite the audiences of the time, (which ought to baffle modern readers), with many parallel stories of the younger brother gaining his older brother's inheritance. Stories of incest, deceptive prostitutes, brutal murders and insanity indicate that the author intended to tittilate his audience rather than inspire. Why should a divinely inspired book be written for popularity, (especially when it claims that the majority of humanity will reject it). Well I think it's more akin to asking if we were not affected by alcohol would beer be as popular, which I think is a relevant question. The point I am making which you seem to be giving a good example of, is that many people that are not of faith, have trouble seeing past religion when reading the Bible. It's often considered by Atheists to just be a book written by several people over a period of time, but rarely read as such. I find it curious that one would consider the Bible to lack inspiration, I would think reality would suggest otherwise. Or are you suggesting it does inspire, it simply was not intended to? The Bible was written a very long time ago, and was as you say designed to be relevant to its audience at the time, however I also believe it was designed to be relevant today, and 3000 years from now. Naturally this will mean there will be perspectives present that are not of relevance to any given audience. swstephe wrote: Also, it is a fallacy to claim that popularity is indicative of anything. Look at the #2 best-selling book of all time, "Mao's Little Red Book of Sayings". Why not claim that this book is also the work of geniuses who were able to produce a book which is relevant to so many? It was certainly much more relevant and accessible to its audience than the Bible is to Christians today. Both the Bible and Mao's book are popular because they are symbols of the people it represents. Had you replaced the contents with a recipe for shrimp gumbo, and everyone agreed that those were the correct contents, they would be just as revered, even if nobody made shrimp gumbo. Well I said it was relevant to a lot of people, not that it was relevant because owned by a lot of people. The emphasis on popularity is entirely of your own doing. This book may very well be the work of genius I have no idea, however I very much doubt it is more relevant to its audience than the Bible, I doubt it very much indeed.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy

Visual_Philosopher
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 22, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/22/08 - 04:45 PM:	#62
In response to the very post, I do not see most of these as arguments; the ones that can be one are not very cogent. Everything else are questions that seem to make claims. In order to have an argument, you must have a conclusion that is in dispute supported by premises (evidence). You really haven't given me any significant reason to be persuaded by you. Overall, I am really quite neutral in the matter at the moment. I do believe that Jesus was a very significant man in history and there isn't any denying the fact. Read the morals presented in The Gospels and you are likely to agree with many of those ideas which have probably shaped your very own ethics because of our Western Culture. However, I also see potential "errors" for what nonchristians recognize as well. In order to play fair, we have to be willing to see both viewpoints accurately and not try to change what someone else is trying to say. Now concerning your questions, many of them are not very relevant to your title. In accordance to your questions, I will briefly answer them one by one. <quote>if God is going to take the time to write and publish "the Word of God," why does the book contain so many problems? </quote> 1. Ok, so you are saying the Bible has problems. What kind of problems? Can you give me examples other than the all-edged claim that the Bible is extremely sexist? Also, how about considering other reasons why a God would take the time to "speak" though men to write and publish the Bible. <quote>Why isn't each page of the Bible astonishing us with its brilliance and insight, and filling us with wonder? </quote> I think you have made a claim that is false. I know many people who have been astonished with the Bible. Heck, I have been astonished that some hundred years before it was discovered that earth is a sphere, the Bible mentions its spherical shape. Isaiah 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are(A) like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; <quote>Why, instead, does the Bible contain so much nonsense or, in this case, bigotry? </quote> Please state evidence. <quote>Why are Christians constantly having to justify, rationalize, excuse and explain the Bible? In this case, we find modern Christians trying to defend a God who obviously dislikes women on many different levels. /<quote> Atleast they are providing some kind of support for why they believe what they do, whether it's good support or not, while you provide none. I can really believe God truly dislike woman unless you try to convince me with reason - a key component of logic, by the way. <quote>Why didn't God understand how he would look to intelligent human beings in the twenty first century, and get it right when he wrote the Bible? The fact is that we are forced to completely ignore God when he says, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." No one believes that, most especially the 50% of the population who are female. </quote> That's because the woman were disturbing the church and asking questions during the service, distracting it. If you want to talk about God and woman, how about you try to answer this one. In Ancient times, no one ever would have had a woman testify a truth or use them to make a claim. Why would the writers use women to go see the empty tomb? In this instance, it seems that if they were going to try and manipulate us, they would have used men as the ones who claimed to see the empty tomb. Also, I am confused by your statement: Why didn't God understand how he would LOOK to intelligent human beings...What do you mean by look? <quote>Key Point To any unbiased observer, the reason for rampant sexism in the Bible is very easy to understand: The Bible was not written by God. It was written by primitive men who were flagrant sexists. Just look at how men in primitive countries like Afghanistan treat women today. Those are the kind of men who wrote the Bible. God had nothing to do with this book.</quote> I am unbiased and I still need some evidence as to how "sexism" in the Bible is similar to the treatment of Islamic women. You really aren't doing a great job at convincing me so far, just bring forth a whole bunch of claims without any reasonable support. I think this would be stronger if you gave some examples of the similarities. <quote>If you are a Christian, I would ask you to consider the two possible ways to explain the sexism that we are seeing in the Bible: You can assume that God actually did write the Bible and truly is sexist and misogynistic. In that case we are directly defying God's word today by allowing women to be equal to men. Or you can assume that God had nothing to do with the Bible. In that case, the Bible is meaningless and we can discard it, as discussed in Chapter 13. </quote> I see that you make a reasonable assumption. Who wants to be involved with a God who is sexists? But I don't think the Bible is completely meaningless. Unbiasedly thinking, it does have some good moral issues in there, such as forgiving people, not murdering, giving to the poor, and things of that nature. <quote> Drawing a simple conclusion To any unbiased observer, the reason for sexism in the Bible is very easy to understand: The Bible was not written by God. It was written by primitive men who were flagrant sexists. Just look at how men in primitive countries like Afghanistan treat women today. Those are the kind of men who wrote the Bible. And we all know it -- Christians and non-Christians alike. The reason why modern societies (including most Christians living in those societies) completely reject sexism is because we all know that the Bible's sexism is wrong. It is exactly the same situation we see when Christians face slavery and animal sacrifice in the Bible. Christians and non-Christians alike reject the Bible's teachings in these areas because the Bible is obviously wrong. The part that is profoundly strange is that, while completely rejecting these parts of the Bible, Chistians will claim that other parts of the Bible are God's word. They seem to be blind to the obvious contradiction. </quote> I somewhat see your point. Once again, if you gave me some examples, I could emd up agreeing with you. I really do not have a belief on that matter myself, due to lack of sufficient information. </quote> At some point, Christians have to accept the evidence that we all can see: Either God wrote the Bible, or he did not. If he did, then he is wrong, and we should reject the Bible and him. If he did not, then we should reject the Bible. This fact should now be apparent to every woman, and to any rational man. <quote> So basically, the Bible is not true because it has problems and is sexist. That was repeated quite alot and makes these claims quite redundant. Please just give me some dang examples!!

crossword
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2006
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 63

Posted 05/23/08 - 06:38 PM:	#63
Hi Visual Philosopher As I said earlier, if you go here: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god-toc.htm you will see he develops his argument from start to finish and gives the examples you ask for. it is the table of contents for his “book.” I went through every chapter. He is way too repetitive and covers the same ground again and again but one can easily see when he repeats an argument he made earlier and can skip or skim over that bit. I did a lot of skimming but read the gist.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1511

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/24/08 - 02:43 AM:	#64
Visual_Philosopher wrote: So basically, the Bible is not true because it has problems and is sexist. That was repeated quite alot and makes these claims quite redundant. Please just give me some dang examples!! Follow the logic to the next step and you will find that this thread is actually being quite kind. If the Bible was somehow "written by God", then you must accept that God made all those mistakes and is quite sexist. If the Bible is somehow divinely protected, then that protection has failed in those cases and again you need to hold God responsible for allowing those mistakes, misquotes and inaccuracies to exist. If, however, you accept the premise of this thread, that the Bible was written by a bunch of people and all the mistakes, sexism, and tacit approval for other human rights violations are the fault of the people. I noticed one point on the WDGHA website: if God wrote or inspired the word of God through human scribes, then he violated their free will if they chose to write something reflecting their own personal biases and knowledge about the world. I'm trying to be even nicer -- suggesting that the Bible never even claims to be a direct revelation from God, other than hyperbole. That gets everyone off the hook and makes the argument about contradictions and all the sex and violence in the Bible non-threatening. I argue that Christians don't even follow the Bible and don't even treat it with the reverence that Jews treat the Torah or Muslims treat the Koran.
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 05/24/08 - 10:25 AM:	#65
Underneath the 'Bible' part of the discussion is the concern in general about God's marketing. I would be interested to know an estimate of the number of people in the world in the last 2000 years who have never met a Christian. Of people today, I expect it is in excess of 1 billion (think of China and India, let alone North Korea or Burma) - probably greater than the number of people who have never seen a Coke bottle. How could the Christian message be of such importance and so poorly marketed? Possible explanations include that God is racist (unlikely), God has provided messages of equal merit to all peoples (wishy washy), or Christianity does not have an omnipotent sponsor. I would be pleased to hear other alternatives....

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1532

Posted 05/24/08 - 10:45 AM:	#66
mric wrote: Possible explanations include that God is racist (unlikely), God has provided messages of equal merit to all peoples (wishy washy), or Christianity does not have an omnipotent sponsor. I would be pleased to hear other alternatives.... I think the traditional Christian response is that God has his own inscrutable game plan. And most claim that this game plan doesn't include saving everybody. According to their apologetics, God is not being unjust or unfair in whom he selects to save or not to save, since no one at all deserves to be saved, and therefore no one at all has a claim on his mercy. Apologetics is the comedy channel of the gods. Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 05/24/08 - 12:56 PM:	#67
jdrw wrote: I think the traditional Christian response is that God has his own inscrutable game plan. And most claim that this game plan doesn't include saving everybody. According to their apologetics, God is not being unjust or unfair in whom he selects to save or not to save, since no one at all deserves to be saved, and therefore no one at all has a claim on his mercy. Apologetics is the comedy channel of the gods. Sounds about right. The word 'inscrutable' is quite interesting, since cursory scrutiny would suggest some characteristics of his game plan (or at least exclude some characteristics, such as universal love). This position is, I think, the one that Augustine (no fool) seemed to end up with - we start off damned (original sin), most of us remain damned (massa damnata), and the minority who are saved are just damned lucky. Perhaps, to link it back to the question of Biblical prose style, this is why some parts of the Bible are potentially ambiguous; the message is designed so that people don't understand it - if they did, it would be significantly less palatable.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1511

Posted 05/24/08 - 09:49 PM:	#68
mric wrote: Underneath the 'Bible' part of the discussion is the concern in general about God's marketing. I would be interested to know an estimate of the number of people in the world in the last 2000 years who have never met a Christian. Of people today, I expect it is in excess of 1 billion (think of China and India, let alone North Korea or Burma) - probably greater than the number of people who have never seen a Coke bottle. How could the Christian message be of such importance and so poorly marketed? Possible explanations include that God is racist (unlikely), God has provided messages of equal merit to all peoples (wishy washy), or Christianity does not have an omnipotent sponsor. I would be pleased to hear other alternatives.... I once said it before: Christianity owes a lot of its marketing to Christmas. Christmas owes a lot of its marketing to Coca-Cola, (not as much now as before). An Coca-cola got its start from Cocaine. I think it is pretty hard to find anyone in the world over the age of 30 who has never seen a Coke bottle, (isn't that more a reference to African "bushmen"?). Christianity is already well entrenched in India, (third largest religion, 24 million), and China, (14 million). Even Myanmar and North Korea have substantial Christian minorities from the days before their current political situations. Not just apologetics, The book of Romans states that many people are predestined to be unsaved, but that's still "just" due to sovereignty. The gospels, however, mention that other people still have some "light", (which implies a complex subject of people being 'saved' with incomplete or faulty information). One thought I've been mulling over recently: the Bible makes a big deal about the path to the salvation being "narrow", as opposed to the path of the world, to its destruction being "wide". It creates a kind of paradox. As soon as a certain religious standpoint becomes popular, it is either false, or it invalidates which path is the correct path. So, rationally, every person should choose the minority "path", which makes it the majority path again.
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 223

Posted 05/25/08 - 07:18 AM:	#69
I think its important to make a distinction between the Christian God and God. The marketing of God, is far from flawed, as most communtities beleive in some kind of God or higher spirit. As far as Christianity they have a specific view of God and that is less universal although extremely wide spread as stated. As far as the "narrow" path I think there is a difference between "narrow" and popular, I imagine it to be describing the the ease with which to follow the path, rather than the number of people able to pass it, although there maybe something of both here. As well the "path" to my knowledge has always been the path, it may have been interpreted wrong in the past and maybe so now, but the path has always been the same yet it seems as narrow or wide as ever. Although these arguments seem to be against specific beliefs by specific sections of Christianity, I thought I'd give my two cents worth
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 05/25/08 - 12:49 PM:	#70
Techeth wrote: I think its important to make a distinction between the Christian God and God. The marketing of God, is far from flawed, as most communtities beleive in some kind of God or higher spirit. As far as Christianity they have a specific view of God and that is less universal although extremely wide spread as stated. I think this thread's modest aims are met if we can agree that Christianity has no reasonable claim to a unique status for the truth of its texts....

Evangelos
Metaphysically Gonzo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 27, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 14

Posted 05/25/08 - 06:11 PM:	#71
crossword wrote: I am curious as to how any Christian would answer the following arguments that I found on a site: I was going to give it a shot, and then this clicked in. Why would I give any importance to something some guy copied from some random website meant to do nothing more than drive up traffic?

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 05/26/08 - 02:26 AM:	#72
Evangelos wrote: I was going to give it a shot, and then this clicked in. Why would I give any importance to something some guy copied from some random website meant to do nothing more than drive up traffic? That is a fascinating point of view. Perhaps I could restate it as "Why would I give any importance to a text some guys pulled together from some random ancient manuscripts meant to do nothing more than drive up tithes?" It cuts right to the heart of the question, and I am glad to see that Evangelos takes a suitably sceptical approach to second-hand texts such as the Bible. Personally, I would be more charitable than Evangelos, and give texts such as the one originally mentioned in this thread, or the Bible, a decent degree of respect if others of good intent express a view that the text is valuable in some way.

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 223

Posted 05/26/08 - 04:31 AM:	#73
mric wrote: I think this thread's modest aims are met if we can agree that Christianity has no reasonable claim to a unique status for the truth of its texts.... I think I could agree if the thread title was "Proof the Bible is not the only Word of God".
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy

Evangelos
Metaphysically Gonzo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 27, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 14

Posted 05/26/08 - 03:58 PM:	#74
mric wrote: That is a fascinating point of view. Perhaps I could restate it as "Why would I give any importance to a text some guys pulled together from some random ancient manuscripts meant to do nothing more than drive up tithes?" It cuts right to the heart of the question, and I am glad to see that Evangelos takes a suitably sceptical approach to second-hand texts such as the Bible. Personally, I would be more charitable than Evangelos, and give texts such as the one originally mentioned in this thread, or the Bible, a decent degree of respect if others of good intent express a view that the text is valuable in some way. If someone walked up to you on the street, and said, "Read this thousand page book, because I like it," would you do it? How about every book that someone somewhere with good intent expresses a view that the text is valuable in some way? How about every text on said book? How about intellectually demanding, do you read every essay ever written by fifteen year old? And then give it respect because another fifteen year old liked it? Or is there perhaps a degree of judgment you need to imploy before hand regarding said texts? Or if you begin to read one of those texts and realize you've heard and argued every point it made thus far, either for or against, do you just keep reading it? You must spend a lot of time reading, I bow down to your wisdom.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 05/26/08 - 10:27 PM:	#75
Evangelos wrote: If someone walked up to you on the street, and said, "Read this thousand page book, because I like it," would you do it? How about every book that someone somewhere with good intent expresses a view that the text is valuable in some way? How about every text on said book? How about intellectually demanding, do you read every essay ever written by fifteen year old? And then give it respect because another fifteen year old liked it? Or is there perhaps a degree of judgment you need to imploy before hand regarding said texts? Or if you begin to read one of those texts and realize you've heard and argued every point it made thus far, either for or against, do you just keep reading it? You must spend a lot of time reading, I bow down to your wisdom. No, of course I don't do those things. But when I make a personal choice to reply to a thread on a Philosophy forum (as you did) I try to understand the context. In this case I took about ten minutes to look at the referred website having read the original post, and found it mildly interesting. You ended up in the odd position of finding the thread interesting enough to post to, but not interesting enough to try to understand. I would have entirely understood if you had made no comment, but I was amused that you took the effort to explain why you weren't taking the effort to participate in a conversation in which you had no obligation to participate.

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.