The Bible is definitely not for kids. Should there be a warning on the cover? What with all the slaughter and cannibalism and incest and everything? Surely the term the "Good Book" is the biggest trading standards swizz of all time.
Simple solution is to just file it under adult fiction.
How about a manga version?
(http://archive.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/06/14.jpg)
Churches themselves should come with warning signs outside so minors aren't allowed to enter. It might protect a few more 7 year olds asses from Catholic priests
WARNING Religion is more dangerous than marijuana! :weed: Solitary
Quote from: Desdinova on May 12, 2015, 02:43:58 PM
How about a manga version?
(http://archive.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/06/14.jpg)
Just for kicks, I looked that up. Funniest thing I've seen all day.
(http://th04.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2014/002/2/0/manga_messiah_page_60_61_by_yugi_dan_yami-d70gis2.jpg)
Jesus is bishÅnen! He has a nice goatee, too.
My personal Bible has several such warnings taped inside the cover. A few choice cartoons, too.
If books came with an official rating scale like movies, then yes. The Bible would have to be for adults only with lines like this: "And their flow of semen appeared to be as much as that of horses."
(http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/478/4781920/2610208-6072602816-Sarcastic-Hahaha-No-Reaction-Gif_zps84fbb96a.gif~original)
How ironic- their #1 book would be banned for sexual content if it weren't their #1 book. :doh:
Every bible ought to be sold with its own cherry picker..
(http://www.altta.co.uk/communities/5/004/011/977/375//images/4611893760.jpg)
Caution, may cause delusion
I would love to own a bookstore just so I could have religious works filed with other fantasy fiction.
And yeah, some sort of mental health warning would be good. "WARNING: This book has been known to cause hate crimes, wars and persecutions. If at any point the narrative seems to be plausible, it is recommended that you stop reading immediately."
"All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."
Somewhere, I remember someone having stickers made up or a stamp that said something like "Caution: The contents of this book contain incest, rape, and violence, and should not be read by children." Maybe it said "This Bible....," rather than "This book." Anyway, they were sticking the warning on a Bible every time they went to a motel. I thought it was a great idea.
You be surprised what slips past peoples radars.
(NSFW)
http://www.amazon.com/Spring-Stag-God-Chronicles/dp/1590213165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1431624928&sr=8-1&keywords=spring+of+the+stag+god
I'm still amazed today amazon hasn't noticed this ^^. Good book btw.
WARNING: The Bible contains graphic descriptions of war, sex, torture, diseases, slavery, plagues, mass slaughter, racism, apocalyptic events and subjugation of women. It is intended for mature audiences with weak minds or aspiring cult leaders. If you experience suicidal thoughts or an erection lasting longer than four hours while reading the bible, you are seriously fucked up. Reader discretion is advised.
Quote from: Desdinova on May 14, 2015, 01:49:20 PM
WARNING: The Bible contains graphic descriptions of war, sex, torture, diseases, slavery, plagues, mass slaughter, racism, apocalyptic events and subjugation of women. It is intended for mature audiences with weak minds or aspiring cult leaders. If you experience suicidal thoughts or an erection lasting longer than four hours while reading the bible, you are seriously fucked up. Reader discretion is advised.
Yeah, I like that better. Did you make that up, or is it the actual wording of what I was trying remember?
Just made it up. Seems appropriate. The only ones I know of that stamp or sticker bibles are those damned Gideons.
Are you kidding? As a kid forced to go to Sunday school and church virtually all day on Sunday, trying to find weird stuff in the Bible was about the only real past time. If I hadn't had access to the Bible, I wouldn't have learned the lessons found in Psalm 137 that talks about bashing the heads of enemy children against rocks, or Deuteronomy 25:11-12 which gives a man the right to cut off his wife's hand if she grabs another man's testicles to break up a fight.
If I hit the lottery, I'm want to have copies of The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, Letter to a Christian Nation, The Demon-Haunted World, that sort of thing, printed up in Gideon bible size and leave them in hotels. And the next time I stay in a hotel, I may just hand-copy one of the warning labels below into the Gideon in my room. :)
Quote from: trdsf on May 14, 2015, 01:06:07 PMI would love to own a bookstore just so I could have religious works filed with other fantasy fiction.
Barnes & Noble has "Religious fiction". Seems redundant, but it works.
Plus, I like fantasy too much to cram the fantasy section with real-life religious stuff. You know, little Johnny is reaching for some wholesome Game of Thrones or Harry Potter book and then he picks up a KJV bible by mistake. At first, he really likes the imaginative setting, monomyth plotline, and fanciful foreign-sounding english. Then, before you know it, he's going to weekly conventions where the fandom does analysis and fan theories for like 3 hours and wants to become a cleric irl even though they've been nerfed like crazy since the 18th edition. So, before you reshelve, think of the children.
Quote from: 1liesalot on May 12, 2015, 02:35:10 PM
The Bible is definitely not for kids. Should there be a warning on the cover? What with all the slaughter and cannibalism and incest and everything? Surely the term the "Good Book" is the biggest trading standards swizz of all time.
I don't really think so. That is, unless you're in the midst of a misapprehension and you believe the Bible is positively promoting slaughter, cannibalism and incest rather than simply reporting facts in the context of the story being told and message being given. If that's the case, I'd recommend correcting your understanding rather than placing a warning on the cover a Bible simply because you've misunderstood something.
I think just filing it under adult fiction like Stromboli suggested would give people the correct idea about its contents.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 17, 2015, 06:34:55 AM
I don't really think so. That is, unless you're in the midst of a misapprehension and you believe the Bible is positively promoting slaughter, cannibalism and incest rather than simply reporting facts in the context of the story being told and message being given. If that's the case, I'd recommend correcting your understanding rather than placing a warning on the cover a Bible simply because you've misunderstood something.
How does one know if one has 'misunderstood' something in the Bible???
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 17, 2015, 10:11:43 AM
How does one know if one has 'misunderstood' something in the Bible???
It comes through divine revelation, a special ability of only the most pious of Christians.
Quote from: SGOS on May 17, 2015, 10:32:32 AM
It comes through divine revelation, a special ability of only the most pious of Christians.
It seems as though we have a visiting christian here. Most are drive-by types, but I'm curious if this one wants to have a conversation. I'm not holding my breath, tho.
Quote from: Desdinova on May 14, 2015, 01:49:20 PM
WARNING: The Bible contains graphic descriptions of war, sex, torture, diseases, slavery, plagues, mass slaughter, racism, apocalyptic events and subjugation of women. It is intended for mature audiences with weak minds or aspiring cult leaders. If you experience suicidal thoughts or an erection lasting longer than four hours while reading the bible, you are seriously fucked up. Reader discretion is advised.
you also need to include the "eunuchs" both medically induced, surgically done or natural, then don't forget the mentally ill are banned along with bastard children and anyone that has a skin rash.
And all that cloven hoof shit. Ham is BAD for you! :naughty:
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 17, 2015, 06:34:55 AM
I don't really think so. That is, unless you're in the midst of a misapprehension and you believe the Bible is positively promoting slaughter, cannibalism and incest rather than simply reporting facts in the context of the story being told and message being given. If that's the case, I'd recommend correcting your understanding rather than placing a warning on the cover a Bible simply because you've misunderstood something.
No, it's pretty clear that the god of the bible is a pretty unpleasant character.
Quote from: 2 Kings 2:23-2423Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!" 24When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number….
Yup. Some kids teased a guy for being bald, and god had forty two children mauled by bears. Seems perfectly just and fair, hm? Yeah, that's a really balanced and reasonable response to kids being kids. What's your "context" for this?
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 17, 2015, 10:11:43 AM
How does one know if one has 'misunderstood' something in the Bible???
The same way you would with any other piece of writing. Granted, the Bible, being an ancient document, would be a bit different than just a run-of-the-mill writing from today, but the principles are the same. You read it and attempt to comprehend its meaning using your understanding of the relevant word, taking into account the context, etc... In terms of the Bible, the art & science of interpretation is called Hermeneutics. It's used with a lot of literary texts, but especially with the Biblical documents. I would recommend the following books:
Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation by Thomas Howe
Taking God At His Word: Why the Bible Is Knowable, Necessary, and Enough, and What That Means for You and Me by Kevin DeYoung
How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart
I hope that helps.
Quote from: SGOS on May 17, 2015, 10:32:32 AM
It comes through divine revelation, a special ability of only the most pious of Christians.
That would be an inaccurate view of what Christians generally believe.
Quote from: trdsf on May 17, 2015, 01:40:52 PM
No, it's pretty clear that the god of the bible is a pretty unpleasant character.
Yup. Some kids teased a guy for being bald, and god had forty two children mauled by bears. Seems perfectly just and fair, hm? Yeah, that's a really balanced and reasonable response to kids being kids. What's your "context" for this?
Yeah, seen from a certain perspective, that would seem like a total over reaction and deeply immoral. That is, if we were judging God as if He were a human being, rather than the author of life and all that has ever come into existence. I suspect that my telling you that will do little to change your mind or provide a satisfying answer, but it is nonetheless, the essential piece of information that should change the perspective from which you make your judgment.
Obviously, whether you like the Christian God or want to have much to do with Him is another matter. But simple honesty requires that we not attempt to treat two different beings with entirely different prerogatives as if they were the same. Treating two vastly different beings with entirely different prerogatives as if they are not different beings with different prerogatives is what leads to such mistaken judgments.
A typical human being doesn't possess the legitimate authority and therefore the prerogative to take a life or have multiple people mauled or injured. This is not the case with the Creator of human life and all that has ever come into existence. As the Creator, He would have entirely different prerogatives. Just as you have a natural right to destroy whatever you yourself create, so God possesses that same right or ability. Not only that, but He would also have the right to sanction or punish bad behavior and could even choose death as His punishment of choice. Indeed, if mankind as fallen and sinful, as the Bible proclaims, God would be justified in punishing and or wiping out all of humanity or all of His creation entirely.
Like I said, this may do nothing to change your mind or provide you a satisfying answer, but if you insist upon sitting in judgment over God as if He is not God, then you'll always come to a faulty conclusion. In dealing with Christians or Christianity, you are much better off attempting to deal with it fairly. This means that if you're going to take exception with something, then you need to understand it and present it in the way it is understood by your opponent or whoever you are taking it up with. Doing otherwise is simply dishonest and unhelpful.
For example, it would do me no good to talk about atheists as the most immoral people on the planet. Why? Because it's generally not true, and it's certainly not how to see or understand themselves. I'd be better off seeing and presenting the atheist as no more or less immoral than anyone else, including myself, unless I know the atheist personally and can somehow vouch for their moral behavior or lack of same.
In other words, if you're going to judge God, fine. But judge Him, as God, rather than as if He were a man. He's not, and misrepresenting Him in that way just isn't an honest or legitimate way to put forward an objection.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 18, 2015, 05:30:13 AM
In terms of the Bible, the art & science of interpretation is called Hermeneutics.
Oh yeah we have all seen how that works. It's what commonly called, "cherry picking".
Thank you for sharing this info about the god who is currently in vogue hereabouts. We have this thing called the big picture or the long view, whichever you want to call it. We've had numerous theists visit us with their version of religion- which changes from person to person, apparently- and "school" us on their beliefs.
Hermaneutics or cherry picking, same thing. I was a Christian for many years and attended 7 different sects in that time, because we were moving around. They all taught, in their words, "the whole bible" and they all taught different versions of the same book. You can't do that with a book that says something specifically and directly. Assemblies of God said that the only measure of spirituality is speaking in tongues and quoted Acts, free Will Baptists quote 1 Corinthians which points out it is essentially meaningless. Foursquare teaches "Prosperity Gospel" and maintained that people were sick because they were sinful, which wasn't a popular idea with my wife who has Multiple Sclerosis.
Simply put, you can lay down page after page of Iron Age scriptural BS but at the end it is just a bunch of words picked out by a group of men from a stack of manuscripts to reflect their particular set of beliefs. That is why we have a Wycliff bible, a Lutheran Bible and a King James bible and so on.
3 or 4 current historians, all non Christian, have published books that maintain that the divine Jesus was either purely myth or made up from an individual who claimed himself a Messianic.
Here. Have about 433 reasons your religion is BS.
http://www.kyroot.com/
Have a nice day.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 18, 2015, 05:30:13 AM
The same way you would with any other piece of writing. Granted, the Bible, being an ancient document, would be a bit different than just a run-of-the-mill writing from today, but the principles are the same. You read it and attempt to comprehend its meaning using your understanding of the relevant word, taking into account the context, etc... In terms of the Bible, the art & science of interpretation is called Hermeneutics. It's used with a lot of literary texts, but especially with the Biblical documents. I would recommend the following books:
Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation by Thomas Howe
Taking God At His Word: Why the Bible Is Knowable, Necessary, and Enough, and What That Means for You and Me by Kevin DeYoung
How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart
I hope that helps.
Thanks for the recommended reading. When I do a serious study of the Bible, I use what is called 'textual criticism' first. That is the study of the earliest of the extent NT that we have. The attempt to determine what was written, and then compare it to all the surviving writings of the same document. This is not about what was meant, but what was said. And to collect all the various versions of that passage or part of the document one is studying. That used to be called lower biblical textual criticism. Then the next step would be 'higher' textual criticism and hermeneutics, or the effort to figure out what the original author meant. From there one can then delve into the philosophical meanings, if any. The study of pericopes is also of interest--sort of like looking at related passages and see how they fit together.
When serious about it, I try to use books by authors who are clearly on both sides of the issue--and those in the middle, if any exist. Then I make up my own mind.
But I will recommend one book for you. And it would take a great deal of courage for you to read it. It is a very carefully thought out book and is highly (and I mean highly) footnoted so you can go to the sources for all of the authors primary sources. It is On The Historicity Of Jesus (Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt), by Richard Carrier.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 18, 2015, 06:01:30 AM
Yeah, seen from a certain perspective, that would seem like a total over reaction and deeply immoral. That is, if we were judging God as if He were a human being, rather than the author of life and all that has ever come into existence. I suspect that my telling you that will do little to change your mind or provide a satisfying answer, but it is nonetheless, the essential piece of information that should change the perspective from which you make your judgment.
I would argue that from any perspective, it's an overreaction and deeply immoral -- especially as an action taken by an entity claimed to be the font of all that's good.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 18, 2015, 06:01:30 AM
Obviously, whether you like the Christian God or want to have much to do with Him is another matter. But simple honesty requires that we not attempt to treat two different beings with entirely different prerogatives as if they were the same. Treating two vastly different beings with entirely different prerogatives as if they are not different beings with different prerogatives is what leads to such mistaken judgments.
A typical human being doesn't possess the legitimate authority and therefore the prerogative to take a life or have multiple people mauled or injured. This is not the case with the Creator of human life and all that has ever come into existence. As the Creator, He would have entirely different prerogatives. Just as you have a natural right to destroy whatever you yourself create, so God possesses that same right or ability. Not only that, but He would also have the right to sanction or punish bad behavior and could even choose death as His punishment of choice. Indeed, if mankind as fallen and sinful, as the Bible proclaims, God would be justified in punishing and or wiping out all of humanity or all of His creation entirely.
So if god does something, even if it's something that any rational person would agree is an evil act if a human did it, then it's okay.
I simply cannot accept this premise. You're saying that any transgression, no matter how slight, can draw any punishment, no matter how severe, and that's all right so long as your god does it. How does this not outrage you?
Let's say I create a painting that is universally hailed as a great masterpiece, an invaluable addition to world culture, up there on the level of the Mona Lisa. If I destroyed it because of one negative review, am I in my rights, or am I doing wrong? By the standards you set up here, I'm completely within my rights and world culture has no cause whatsoever to complain about it.
This is also a total surrender of any idea that there are moral absolutes. There are no moral absolutes if the rules don't apply to your god, too. If there's something they don't apply to, they're not absolute. Period.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 18, 2015, 06:01:30 AM
Like I said, this may do nothing to change your mind or provide you a satisfying answer, but if you insist upon sitting in judgment over God as if He is not God, then you'll always come to a faulty conclusion. In dealing with Christians or Christianity, you are much better off attempting to deal with it fairly. This means that if you're going to take exception with something, then you need to understand it and present it in the way it is understood by your opponent or whoever you are taking it up with. Doing otherwise is simply dishonest and unhelpful.
For example, it would do me no good to talk about atheists as the most immoral people on the planet. Why? Because it's generally not true, and it's certainly not how to see or understand themselves. I'd be better off seeing and presenting the atheist as no more or less immoral than anyone else, including myself, unless I know the atheist personally and can somehow vouch for their moral behavior or lack of same.
In other words, if you're going to judge God, fine. But judge Him, as God, rather than as if He were a man. He's not, and misrepresenting Him in that way just isn't an honest or legitimate way to put forward an objection.
I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm just reporting the words on the page.
What value is there in looking to this god as an example, or as a source of good, or as any sort of moral authority? At best, you're describing someone utterly irrelevant to humanity since he's useless as a moral guide -- "do as I say and not as I do" is hypocrisy of the highest order. I have every right to expect better from something that's supposed to be better than me.
You aren't describing a font of life and goodness. You're describing a capricious, hypocritical tyrant and monster.
Quote from: aitm on May 18, 2015, 08:52:06 AM
Oh yeah we have all seen how that works. It's what commonly called, "cherry picking".
Um, no, it's a field used to evaluate and understand literature all of the time. It has nothing to do with cherry-picking. The intent is to attempt to understand any piece of literature in the way it was intended to be understood. You should look into that field. Actually knowing something about it might disabused you of your current erroneous understanding. If you're actually interested, those books would be extremely helpful.
Quote from: stromboli on May 18, 2015, 09:22:25 AM
Thank you for sharing this info about the god who is currently in vogue hereabouts. We have this thing called the big picture or the long view, whichever you want to call it. We've had numerous theists visit us with their version of religion- which changes from person to person, apparently- and "school" us on their beliefs.
I’m sure you’ve had many theists visit, and probably all of them had various levels of knowledge and understanding. I’m also sure that they had various levels of ignorance and misunderstanding. Be careful not to judge any religion based on the mixed knowledge, understanding, and behavior of its professed followers. The way to judge any religion is to deal with its founder and what are the core or bedrock teachings from the sacred text(s), not according to the unbeliever, but according the historic teachings and doctrines of the religion itself.
Quote from: stromboli on May 18, 2015, 09:22:25 AMHermaneutics or cherry picking, same thing. I was a Christian for many years and attended 7 different sects in that time, because we were moving around. They all taught, in their words, "the whole bible" and they all taught different versions of the same book. You can't do that with a book that says something specifically and directly. Assemblies of God said that the only measure of spirituality is speaking in tongues and quoted Acts, free Will Baptists quote 1 Corinthians which points out it is essentially meaningless. Foursquare teaches "Prosperity Gospel" and maintained that people were sick because they were sinful, which wasn't a popular idea with my wife who has Multiple Sclerosis.
Simply put, you can lay down page after page of Iron Age scriptural BS but at the end it is just a bunch of words picked out by a group of men from a stack of manuscripts to reflect their particular set of beliefs. That is why we have a Wycliff bible, a Lutheran Bible and a King James bible and so on.
Hermeneutics is not “cherry pickingâ€. It is a systematic way to arrive at the most objective and accurate understanding of the texts in their various genre, context, intent, etc… . For example:
There are four different types of biblical hermeneutics, literal, moral, allegorical (spiritual) and anagogical.
LiteralEncyclopaedia Britannica states that literal analysis means “a biblical text is to be deciphered according to the ‘plain meaning’ expressed by its linguistic construction and historical context.†The intention of the authors is believed to correspond to the literal meaning. Literal hermeneutics is often associated with the verbal inspiration of the Bible.
MoralMoral interpretation searches for moral lessons which can be understood from writings within the Bible. Allegories are often placed in this category. This can be seen in the Epistle of Barnabas, which explains the dietary laws by stating which meats are forbidden but is interpreted as forbidding immorality with animals.
AllegoricalAllegorical interpretation states that biblical narratives has a second level of reference that is more than the people, events and things that are explicitly mentioned. One type of allegorical interpretation is known as typological, where the key figures, events, and establishments of the Old Testament are viewed as “typesâ€. In the New Testament this can also include foreshadowing of people, objects, and events. According to this theory readings like Noah’s Ark could be understood by using the Ark as a “type†of Christian church that God expected from the start.
AnagogicalThis type of interpretation is more often known as mystical interpretation. It purports to explain the events of the Bible and how they relate to or predict what the future holds. This is evident in the Jewish Kabbalah, which attempts to reveal the mystical significance of the numerical values of Hebrew words and letters.
And of course, these are just categories within hermeneutics, but there is nothing about them that is consistent with “cherry pickingâ€. The field of hermeneutics is concerned with exactly the opposite, which is to say, avoiding things like “cherry pickingâ€.
And are you saying that because there is variation in understanding and therefore, application, that the Bible doesn’t teach anything in particular? I would guess that most of the churches you mentioned believed that God existed? They probably also believed that Jesus Christ was God incarnate who came to die for and pay for the sins of mankind? I’m guessing that they all probably also believed that he was born of a virgin and lived a sinless life? I’m thinking maybe they also believed that if people repented of their sin and accepted or trusted in the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that they could be “saved†and spend eternity in Heaven when they died? My point is simply that in terms of the salient details or the “core teachings†of Christianity, there was probably widespread agreement, regardless of how many other tangential issues they might disagree on. Is that possible?
Quote from: stromboli on May 18, 2015, 09:22:25 AM3 or 4 current historians, all non Christian, have published books that maintain that the divine Jesus was either purely myth or made up from an individual who claimed himself a Messianic.
Right…and the fact that the other 30 or 40 thousand historians across the world don’t generally find this claim historically supportable just doesn’t matter? I agree and am aware that there are a few scholars who hold the view that you speak of, but they are a tiny fraction of the scholars in their field and are largely dismissed even by other secular scholars. They may provide a good way for you to rationalize your rejection of Christ, but in terms of the truth about reality, I don’t think I’d be too quick to adopt that view.
Quote from: stromboli on May 18, 2015, 09:22:25 AMHere. Have about 433 reasons your religion is BS.
http://www.kyroot.com/
Have a nice day.
I will look at your reasons when I have more time, but the fact that I saw ‘Jesus Seminar’ doesn’t give me a lot of hope. Their so-called “scholarship†has been debunked for nearly 20 years, and they are generally not taken very seriously these days, apart from those that are hostile to Christianity. If you’re seeking the truth about any particular aspect of Christianity, there are better places to go. I will say though that this looks like another aggregate site for largely rhetorical objections to the Christian faith. Just scanning the page, I can tell you that everything I’ve seen so far has been thoroughly answered and debunked over the years, though I’m not aware of an aggregate site I can send you to for all 433 specifics. I can recommend 50+ book titles and significant scholarly treatments as well, if you’re interested?
You have a nice day too!
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2015, 12:07:59 PM
Thanks for the recommended reading. When I do a serious study of the Bible, I use what is called 'textual criticism' first. That is the study of the earliest of the extent NT that we have. The attempt to determine what was written, and then compare it to all the surviving writings of the same document. This is not about what was meant, but what was said. And to collect all the various versions of that passage or part of the document one is studying. That used to be called lower biblical textual criticism. Then the next step would be 'higher' textual criticism and hermeneutics, or the effort to figure out what the original author meant. From there one can then delve into the philosophical meanings, if any. The study of pericopes is also of interest--sort of like looking at related passages and see how they fit together.
When serious about it, I try to use books by authors who are clearly on both sides of the issue--and those in the middle, if any exist. Then I make up my own mind.
But I will recommend one book for you. And it would take a great deal of courage for you to read it. It is a very carefully thought out book and is highly (and I mean highly) footnoted so you can go to the sources for all of the authors primary sources. It is On The Historicity Of Jesus (Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt), by Richard Carrier.
Why would it take courage for me to read something by Richard Carrier? I'm aware of the book and very familiar with Richard Carrier, as I've seen several of his debates. I'm not the least bit threatened by the content of Carrier's book, especially since the great majority of his book's content has been variously addressed by William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, Craig A. Evans, Michael Licona, J. Ed Komoszewski, Robert Bowman, Michael J. Kruger, N.T. Wright, and others. You can probably find some of the stuff on the internet. But lots of people have addressed it. Are you aware of that?
Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2015, 05:58:07 PM
I would argue that from any perspective, it's an overreaction and deeply immoral -- especially as an action taken by an entity claimed to be the font of all that's good.
From any perspective? How so? You’re saying that God wouldn’t have the right to punish His own creation for a crime against Him? That would be truly odd. It still appears that you’re pretending that God is a mere human with the prerogatives that a human being would have. It also appears that you’re suggesting that God must respond to some moral law that is outside of Himself rather than acting in harmony with His perfectly just nature. Obviously, you wouldn’t find the action you described as “perfectly justâ€, but that’s because any human being would find any other human being ordering or carrying out such a thing to be immoral. God is not a human being. He is the author of life itself. If He decided to do away with all life, that would be His right. We only have life because of His action. Why is He under any obligation to continue to sustain what He’s created?
Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2015, 05:58:07 PMSo if god does something, even if it's something that any rational person would agree is an evil act if a human did it, then it's okay.
In a lot of cases, that would be true, because God has entirely different prerogatives than human beings do. The kind of being you are and your relationship with the thing, person, or event in question has a serious bearing on what is and what is not permitted. For example, parents can act in ways with their children in ways that strangers cannot. Government agents such as police have the authority to take actions against citizens that other people do not. Doctors have the prerogative or authority to do things to their patient that other people do not. Governments and their representative agents (i.e. judges) can even legitimately order the punishment and even death of those proven guilty of very serious crimes. People can act in all sorts of ways that are unique to their position or status relative to the party they are acting toward or against. This is not unusual. God, as the creator of all that has ever come into existence, would have the ultimate set of prerogatives or the authority to take all kinds of action consistent with His nature. That doesn’t mean He can do absolutely anything, but it does mean that He would possess the legitimate right or authority to take all kinds of action against or toward His creation that you or any other human being would not. Since God is perfect and has set down laws or rules for His creation to follow, disobeying or contravening His law would constitute a crime against Him. As such, He would be entirely justified and indeed required by His nature to mete out justice for the crimes committed.
Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2015, 05:58:07 PMI simply cannot accept this premise.
It would probably be more accurate to use the word “will notâ€. You can do anything that it is possible for you to do, but your willingness to do those things is really the matter in question. I suspect that it’s your willingness rather than ability that is truly preventing you from accepting the premise.
Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2015, 05:58:07 PMYou're saying that any transgression, no matter how slight, can draw any punishment, no matter how severe, and that's all right so long as your God does it.
No, I probably wouldn’t put it precisely like that. But could He choose physical death for any punishment or prelude to punishment, sure. In other words, since He created you, He could choose to end your physical existence whenever He sees fit. Having said that, it’s unlikely that your punishment in any afterlife, which will be the primary time for receiving punishment, for a slight transgression would be as bad as someone else who had committed a more serious crime.
Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2015, 05:58:07 PMHow does this not outrage you?
For the same reason that normal people exercising their legitimate authority doesn’t outrage me. I don’t get outraged with a judge sentences a criminal to life in prison for murder. I get more outraged when I see a child rapist get put away for 3 years and then let back out onto the streets. As the author of all human life, God would possess the right and legitimate authority to punish all breaking of His law. And keep in mind, it’s not as though there are people walking around who’ve only committed a single sin or breaking of God’s law that is the equivalent of spitting on the sidewalk or littering. No, the list of crimes for every human being of any significant age is probably in the multiple thousands or millions, if I’m being conservative. How many times have you lied, lusted, or done other things that are wrong even by your own standards? We don’t even live up to our own standards perfectly, to say nothing of God’s. If God is just, do you expect him to not punish people for the crimes they commit? If He is just, how can he not punish contravention of His law? Before you answer that, remember that human beings are the ground of the moral law or what is right and wrong, and therefore cannot be compared to God in this way.
Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2015, 05:58:07 PMLet's say I create a painting that is universally hailed as a great masterpiece, an invaluable addition to world culture, up there on the level of the Mona Lisa. If I destroyed it because of one negative review, am I in my rights, or am I doing wrong? By the standards you set up here, I'm completely within my rights and world culture has no cause whatsoever to complain about it.
Well, let’s try stating it differently. You’re saying that because an artist creates and sublime work of art, they lose their rights to their own work merely because it was done well? Who is anyone to tell the artist what his threshold for deciding to destroy or scrap his own work of art should be? It seems to me that if you created it, then you have a right to do whatever you want with your own work & property. However, keep in mind that God’s ownership of His creation goes even deeper than the example you gave suggests. For example, did the artist create the ground He’s standing on, the air he’s breathing, the clothes he’s wearing, the blood that flowing through his veins, the brush he’s using, the canvas he’s painting on, or the paints he’s applying? Or did he just buy a brush, paints and a canvas from some other person and apply this material that he didn’t create in order to create something new and perhaps better? Has he not simply added value, thereby taking ownership, to something that already existed by arranging it (i.e. the paints on the surface of the canvas) in a novel or more beautiful way? This is a far different thing than what God has done. He’s created all that has ever come into being and is responsible for sustaining the very laws of nature that allow it to continue in its existence. So yeah, I’d say He has the legitimate right to do what He will with that which belongs to Him, which is…absolutely everything.
Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2015, 05:58:07 PMThis is also a total surrender of any idea that there are moral absolutes. There are no moral absolutes if the rules don't apply to your god, too. If there's something they don't apply to, they're not absolute. Period.
How so? You’re saying that because a judge can lock a criminal up for years and I cannot do that, that there are no legitimate laws or punishments for the breaking of those laws? That seems to be what you’re saying. It sounds as if you’re saying, if God does not have to abide by human prerogatives and human levels of authority, then moral absolutes don’t exist. Honestly, that simply doesn’t make sense. I’ve already demonstrated that the nature of who you are in your position relative to whatever you’re dealing with gives you certain prerogatives, and I gave several examples. As the creator of all that has ever come into existence, God would have the maximum level of authority that could be had by any entity of any kind and certainly far more authority that any human being or even the entire mass of humanity itself. After all, they are His, whether they want or choose to acknowledge that fact or not. I don’t think God’s authority does anything to undermine His own nature and thus does nothing to undermine the moral law or moral absolutes.
Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2015, 05:58:07 PMI'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm just reporting the words on the page.
I’m not suggesting that you’re misrepresenting the story. I’m suggesting that you’re misrepresenting God, if you’re suggesting that he must somehow be saddled with only human authority and prerogatives rather than the authority and prerogatives He would naturally have as the creator of all that has ever come into existence. You cannot treat God as if He were a mere man, and then still pretend to be talking about God. It’s not honest, and it’s entirely unhelpful at getting at the truth of any particular situation or thing.
Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2015, 05:58:07 PMWhat value is there in looking to this god as an example, or as a source of good, or as any sort of moral authority? At best, you're describing someone utterly irrelevant to humanity since he's useless as a moral guide -- "do as I say and not as I do" is hypocrisy of the highest order. I have every right to expect better from something that's supposed to be better than me.
Those questions only make sense if you’re still treating God as a man rather than as God. If you can’t or won’t see the difference between a human being and the creator of all that ever came into existence and what differences that would
NECESSARILY create in terms of authority and prerogatives, there’s not a lot I’m going to be able to do to help you. I’ve given multiple examples. I hope they’ve helped. If not, I guess you’re out of luck.
Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2015, 05:58:07 PMYou aren't describing a font of life and goodness. You're describing a capricious, hypocritical tyrant and monster.
No, God is accountable to His own nature. He simply has higher levels of authority to carry out punishments and other acts than do any human beings. God must act consistent with His nature and is therefore in harmony with the moral law. For God to act immorally, he must violate His own nature, which isn’t possible. In terms of breaking the moral law, that is only possible for us because we are imperfect and are responding to a law that is not derived or grounded in us. In other words, we are not the source of the moral law, we are the creatures to whom it applies. God is the source of the moral law itself and therefore always acts in harmony with it or His own nature, which is the ground or source of morality. So there is no capriciousness, since God is bound to act in accordance with or is accountable to His own nature. There is no hypocrisy because He’s not telling any legitimate authority not to punish criminals. He may tell illegitimate authorities not to take it upon themselves to punish criminals. Or he may tell someone not to take the life of a person innocent of any crimes against the person desirous of taking that life. But of course, there are no human beings who are innocent of crimes against God. And there is no tyranny because there is no injustice being carried out by God. God is justified in punishing criminals, and since all human beings are guilty of crimes against him and all will eventually be judge, apart from those who are willing to accept His pardon in Jesus Christ; there is no unjust use of His power or authority. Monster? I think not. More like a judge who has stepped down from the judge’s seat and offered to take the criminals punishment on Himself, as an act of mercy and sacrifice out of love for that which He created. If people weren’t so locked in their rebellion, hatred, and misunderstanding of God; they would see the beauty and the de-merited favor He’s lavished upon His creation while under NO obligation to do so.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 06:17:58 AM
Why would it take courage for me to read something by Richard Carrier? I'm aware of the book and very familiar with Richard Carrier, as I've seen several of his debates. I'm not the least bit threatened by the content of Carrier's book, especially since the great majority of his book's content has been variously addressed by William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, Craig A. Evans, Michael Licona, J. Ed Komoszewski, Robert Bowman, Michael J. Kruger, N.T. Wright, and others. You can probably find some of the stuff on the internet. But lots of people have addressed it. Are you aware of that?
Why courage? Because most people don't like investigating ideas they don't like or approve of. And most Christians who have visited this board since I've been here have been drive-by types. If that does not apply to you, then good. I have found much of that 'stuff' on the internet. I have read some criticisms and evaluations of his book, but not all that you mentioned. I'll get to them as time goes by. I find Carrier's book to be the most complete that I have read on the subject so far. Robert M. Price and Wells wrote excellent books on the same subject--but Carrier does the best job, in my opinion, to date. I've read it through and am now going into more detail in some of the areas I find most interesting. Have you read it?
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 18, 2015, 06:01:30 AM
A typical human being doesn't possess the legitimate authority and therefore the prerogative to take a life or have multiple people mauled or injured. This is not the case with the Creator of human life and all that has ever come into existence. As the Creator, He would have entirely different prerogatives. Just as you have a natural right to destroy whatever you yourself create, so God possesses that same right or ability. Not only that, but He would also have the right to sanction or punish bad behavior and could even choose death as His punishment of choice. Indeed, if mankind as fallen and sinful, as the Bible proclaims, God would be justified in punishing and or wiping out all of humanity or all of His creation entirely.
So, using this logic it would be perfectly acceptable to kill my son. I created him, so I can kill him. Makes perfect fucking sense. Especially if he has taken to laying with other men. The bible is nothing more than a set of fairy tales written by man to control man. In fact as far as fairy tales go, it's really not that good. I prefer Goldilocks, or even Hansel and Gretel. Christians are such deluded creatures.
Here is an interesting new video about whether or not you would vote for God if He stood for office.
https://youtu.be/HIxSeiqyGXQ
I want to preface this with the statement that needless to say I am not accepting your basic premise that there is a god; this is simply a philosophical exercise. Nothing you say below has any meaning until you demonstrate the existence of your god first.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 07:41:42 AM
From any perspective? How so? You’re saying that God wouldn’t have the right to punish His own creation for a crime against Him? That would be truly odd.
No, that's a deliberate misreading of what I said. I said it was an
overreaction, and as a punishment entirely inappropriate. I have trimmed the rest as irrelevant, since there's no god for me to "pretend" isn't there. My parents gave me life; what you're saying is that they retain the right to kill me if I transgress against them since they gave me life.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 07:41:42 AM
In a lot of cases, that would be true, because God has entirely different prerogatives than human beings do. ... That doesn’t mean He can do absolutely anything, but it does mean that He would possess the legitimate right or authority to take all kinds of action against or toward His creation that you or any other human being would not. Since God is perfect and has set down laws or rules for His creation to follow, disobeying or contravening His law would constitute a crime against Him. As such, He would be entirely justified and indeed required by His nature to mete out justice for the crimes committed.
You need to make up your mind here. Either your god can do anything, or he can't. You've can't have it both ways.
You also have a strange definition of 'justice' -- it appears to be "whatever god feels like doing whether it's relevant, proportional, appropriate, or just". I want to know in what possible way the original point -- having bears maul 42 children for teasing a man about being bald -- is a just and proper punishment. I state flatly that it was an evil act, and that whoever did it committed an act of evil. "Because god did it" does not magically make it 'not evil'.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 07:41:42 AM
It would probably be more accurate to use the word “will notâ€. You can do anything that it is possible for you to do, but your willingness to do those things is really the matter in question. I suspect that it’s your willingness rather than ability that is truly preventing you from accepting the premise.
Do
not presume to tell me when I mean 'can not' and when I mean 'will not'. I stand by 'can not'. It is not possible for me to accept that the action under discussion is right and moral for any entity.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 07:41:42 AM
No, I probably wouldn’t put it precisely like that. But could He choose physical death for any punishment or prelude to punishment, sure. In other words, since He created you, He could choose to end your physical existence whenever He sees fit. Having said that, it’s unlikely that your punishment in any afterlife, which will be the primary time for receiving punishment, for a slight transgression would be as bad as someone else who had committed a more serious crime.
For the same reason that normal people exercising their legitimate authority doesn’t outrage me. I don’t get outraged with a judge sentences a criminal to life in prison for murder. I get more outraged when I see a child rapist get put away for 3 years and then let back out onto the streets. As the author of all human life, God would possess the right and legitimate authority to punish all breaking of His law.=
But that's the necessary conclusion from what you've said: if your god does it, it's okay, because the rules are different for him. By what you've set up here, your god is completely within his rights to, say, send a pack of wolves after me if I fail to cross myself when passing in front of a church (yeah, I was raised Catholic, it was a reflex).
And this also takes us back to the charge of capriciousness, and by extension into the Problem of Evilw when you consider all the transgressions great and small that happen every single day, that essentially go unpunished. Why? It implies a deity who just doesn't care, least of all when the harm is done in his name, or even ascribed to him. Where was his anger when some TV preachers claimed 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina were divine punishment for America (mainly for allowing gays and liberals and feminism to exist)? And if those
were divinely inspired actions, well, his aim is abysmal.
So you have here a god that you say can take any action he feels like for any slight. And at the same time does absolutely nothing about the evil done in his name. Either he doesn't care--which makes him complicit in the wrongs done in his name--or he's not there to begin with.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 07:41:42 AM
Well, let’s try stating it differently. You’re saying that because an artist creates and sublime work of art, they lose their rights to their own work merely because it was done well? Who is anyone to tell the artist what his threshold for deciding to destroy or scrap his own work of art should be? It seems to me that if you created it, then you have a right to do whatever you want with your own work & property. However, keep in mind that God’s ownership of His creation goes even deeper than the example you gave suggests. For example, did the artist create the ground He’s standing on, the air he’s breathing, the clothes he’s wearing, the blood that flowing through his veins, the brush he’s using, the canvas he’s painting on, or the paints he’s applying? Or did he just buy a brush, paints and a canvas from some other person and apply this material that he didn’t create in order to create something new and perhaps better? Has he not simply added value, thereby taking ownership, to something that already existed by arranging it (i.e. the paints on the surface of the canvas) in a novel or more beautiful way? This is a far different thing than what God has done. He’s created all that has ever come into being and is responsible for sustaining the very laws of nature that allow it to continue in its existence. So yeah, I’d say He has the legitimate right to do what He will with that which belongs to Him, which is…absolutely everything.
Yeah, it was an awkward metaphor; I couldn't think of anything better. As its creator, I hereby destroy it. It never happened. If you see it on this thread, you're clearly hallucinating. I never wrote such a thing, so why are you responding to it?
Obviously, because a thing has an existence of its own independent of its creator -- not a life, but an existence. I'm kind of straying into meme theory here. If I wanted absolute control over it, I should never have released it to the public. There
are limits to what a creator can do with a creation; even if I were to destroy it, I could not destroy the
idea of it.
And if I
did have that level of control, then there is no such thing as free will. And without free will, your god is personally culpable for the wrongs done by his non-free willed creations, since without free will they cannot legitimately be said to have decided to commit the act. If there
is free will, then there are by definition limits on what your god can and cannot do. The idea that a god
could take control and chooses not to still means there's no free will since it could be revoked at any time, and it still places the problem of evil right back in your god's lap, where there are evil acts committed by his creations that he could have stopped and chose not to.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 07:41:42 AM
How so? You’re saying that because a judge can lock a criminal up for years and I cannot do that, that there are no legitimate laws or punishments for the breaking of those laws? That seems to be what you’re saying. It sounds as if you’re saying, if God does not have to abide by human prerogatives and human levels of authority, then moral absolutes don’t exist. Honestly, that simply doesn’t make sense. I’ve already demonstrated that the nature of who you are in your position relative to whatever you’re dealing with gives you certain prerogatives, and I gave several examples. As the creator of all that has ever come into existence, God would have the maximum level of authority that could be had by any entity of any kind and certainly far more authority that any human being or even the entire mass of humanity itself. After all, they are His, whether they want or choose to acknowledge that fact or not. I don’t think God’s authority does anything to undermine His own nature and thus does nothing to undermine the moral law or moral absolutes.
You have given your
opinion and your
belief of who and what I am. You have demonstrated nothing.
What part of the word 'absolute' is difficult to grasp? If something is absolutely wrong, then it's wrong
no matter who does it. And if there are exceptions, then
it is not absolute.
You also realize that you're defining and re-defining your god in a way we call special pleading -- everything holds for everything, except for this one thing, that the rules are completely different for this one thing.
I assert that if the rules are that completely different, you're talking about an entity that can have no relation to us whatsoever, physically, mentally, emotionally, or ethically. Your god may as well be an incredibly advanced alien being for all the relevance he can have.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 07:41:42 AM
I’m not suggesting that you’re misrepresenting the story. I’m suggesting that you’re misrepresenting God, if you’re suggesting that he must somehow be saddled with only human authority and prerogatives rather than the authority and prerogatives He would naturally have as the creator of all that has ever come into existence. You cannot treat God as if He were a mere man, and then still pretend to be talking about God. It’s not honest, and it’s entirely unhelpful at getting at the truth of any particular situation or thing.
Then what use is this god as any sort of moral compass, if he can't or won't live up to the same rules as he expects everyone else to?
Were I a parent, and teaching my child that lying is bad, being repeatedly caught in obvious lies is only going to undermine that lesson. It's no different here.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 07:41:42 AM
Those questions only make sense if you’re still treating God as a man rather than as God. If you can’t or won’t see the difference between a human being and the creator of all that ever came into existence and what differences that would NECESSARILY create in terms of authority and prerogatives, there’s not a lot I’m going to be able to do to help you. I’ve given multiple examples. I hope they’ve helped. If not, I guess you’re out of luck.
Non-relevant, as this point would first require you to demonstrate that your god exists. Let's stay with the philosophical points.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 07:41:42 AM
No, God is accountable to His own nature. He simply has higher levels of authority to carry out punishments and other acts than do any human beings. God must act consistent with His nature and is therefore in harmony with the moral law. For God to act immorally, he must violate His own nature, which isn’t possible. In terms of breaking the moral law, that is only possible for us because we are imperfect and are responding to a law that is not derived or grounded in us. In other words, we are not the source of the moral law, we are the creatures to whom it applies. God is the source of the moral law itself and therefore always acts in harmony with it or His own nature, which is the ground or source of morality. So there is no capriciousness, since God is bound to act in accordance with or is accountable to His own nature. There is no hypocrisy because He’s not telling any legitimate authority not to punish criminals. He may tell illegitimate authorities not to take it upon themselves to punish criminals. Or he may tell someone not to take the life of a person innocent of any crimes against the person desirous of taking that life.
I have trimmed out the preaching here (
i.e., that which will first require you to demonstrate the existence of your god before it can be considered further) to stick with the philosophical point.
There are a lot of inherent contradictions in this -- the main one is still that you're trying to claim that there is absolute morality, as dictated by your idea of god, but that there are exceptions to it, and that
by definition means that it's not absolute.
Let me see if I can boil this down a little further: what you appear to be saying is that your god cannot be capricious or unjust because you are
a priori defining him as that which cannot be capricious or unjust. This is circular reasoning and special pleading both.
Speaking of circles, it rather brings us back to the quote that started all this. By your statement here, even though any typical human would say that having children mauled by bears for taunting a bald man is an evil act, it's justified because god did it and by definition anything he does--even if it's clearly something that a typical human would define as evil--is not evil simply because he did it.
Also, I'd like to ask you one simple question: do you, in your heart of hearts, believe that when I die I'm going to go to hell?
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2015, 12:31:42 PM
Why courage? Because most people don't like investigating ideas they don't like or approve of. And most Christians who have visited this board since I've been here have been drive-by types. If that does not apply to you, then good. I have found much of that 'stuff' on the internet. I have read some criticisms and evaluations of his book, but not all that you mentioned. I'll get to them as time goes by. I find Carrier's book to be the most complete that I have read on the subject so far. Robert M. Price and Wells wrote excellent books on the same subject--but Carrier does the best job, in my opinion, to date. I've read it through and am now going into more detail in some of the areas I find most interesting. Have you read it?
Well, I get that. And that would probably be the case, if I wasn't already familiar with Carrier. The longer I live though, the more times I see what are supposed to be formidable challenges to the Christian faith soundly defeated by Christian scholars and apologists who are sufficiently equipped, and that has had a tendency to make me very much less trepidatious when happening upon new challengers. I watch all of the debates that I can for this reason. I can't always afford to pull every single book written on the topic off of the shelf, so watching debates between highly praised and/or popular atheist challengers and able Christian defenders is helpful in providing me with a general familiarity with both sides. I've looked at Carrier's book in B&N, but I recall it being a pretty lengthy treatment, so I've not purchased it for reading. Have you watched the debate between Richard Carrier and Bill Craig? If not, you should check it out.
With regard to the so-called "drive-by types", I assume you're talking about theists who come on but don't stay long-term? Well, I'm not so bothered by that for multiple reasons. I've personally had long experience in venues like this, and most often what is run into, at least in my case, is a disproportionate response to what I say. So I might reply to one person, but then that one reply receives 10 or 15 other responses, each expecting a response of their own. And I guess what I mean is that engaging in that way can become quickly overwhelming. In addition, I also tend to run into what are purely rhetorical objections, which can be pretty frustrating. I have to believe that these kinds of things, and the fact that theists tend to be vastly outnumbered in a venue like this, simply don't lend themselves toward a long-term environment for the theist. I'm a pretty busy person myself, so I never know how often I'll be able to spend an hour or two at a time to sit and write lengthy and thoughtful responses. Obviously, I'll see what I can do, but I can't make any promises. The last forum I was in long-term was called DifferHonestly, but it was shut down by its creator "spblat".
Quote from: Desdinova on May 19, 2015, 01:02:35 PM
So, using this logic it would be perfectly acceptable to kill my son. I created him, so I can kill him. Makes perfect fucking sense. Especially if he has taken to laying with other men. The bible is nothing more than a set of fairy tales written by man to control man. In fact as far as fairy tales go, it's really not that good. I prefer Goldilocks, or even Hansel and Gretel. Christians are such deluded creatures.
No, you didn’t create him in the same sense that God did. In that sense, you’re comparing apples and oranges. For example, did you code his DNA and create the very matter to be used in his construction? What you did was carry out a natural process (i.e. heterosexual sex) designed and created by God that, as a rule, by nature, and by design…generally produces human offspring. That’s why I made the distinction between a
“typical human doesn’t possess the legitimate authority and therefore the prerogative to take a life or have multiple people mauled or injured. …â€, and the
“Creator of human life and all that has ever come into existence. As the Creator, He would have entirely different prerogatives. …†Having said that, when you’re dealing with non-living creations that you create by re-arranging pre-existing matter that you own in novel or beautiful ways that add value, you are certainly free to do with that what you will. So in short, the absurdity you are trying to apply simply doesn’t go through.
I agree with you though. The Bible is not a good fairy tale, as it wasn’t designed to be one. I would simply point out that condescension and insulting the Bible or Christians doesn’t work to take the place of a genuine argument.
Quote from: 1liesalot on May 19, 2015, 06:33:57 PM
Here is an interesting new video about whether or not you would vote for God if He stood for office.
https://youtu.be/HIxSeiqyGXQ
The vote should’ve said:
Pardon through Christ OR
Punishment for those guilty of crimesThe rest of the video appears to be little more than a confusion between human government and God. For example, God’s omniscience isn’t a forcibly implanted chip. In one case, it’s part of the creator’s nature, and in another, it’s an arrived at abused of human power. Two different beings (i.e. Creator & created), two different categories of knowledge vs. a computer chip implant & cameras (i.e. one the expression of a being’s nature & the other a recently arrived at process chosen, designed, and abused by specifically human authority), two different circumstances of authority and prerogative (i.e. one in which God
could intervene but places a premium on human freedom for which they are accountable & the other in which the government’s police are instituted by other human beings for your protection and
should intervene as part of the freely constructed human society). And the simpler point is that you cannot compare two unlike things and pretend that they are two like things and expect for it to be taken seriously as a comparison that makes any real or legitimate point. I understand the rhetorical force of a straw man, but I don’t agree with or respect its use amongst those looking for honest discussion.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 20, 2015, 04:28:04 AM
Well, I get that. And that would probably be the case, if I wasn't already familiar with Carrier. The longer I live though, the more times I see what are supposed to be formidable challenges to the Christian faith soundly defeated by Christian scholars and apologists who are sufficiently equipped, and that has had a tendency to make me very much less trepidatious when happening upon new challengers. I watch all of the debates that I can for this reason. I can't always afford to pull every single book written on the topic off of the shelf, so watching debates between highly praised and/or popular atheist challengers and able Christian defenders is helpful in providing me with a general familiarity with both sides. I've looked at Carrier's book in B&N, but I recall it being a pretty lengthy treatment, so I've not purchased it for reading. Have you watched the debate between Richard Carrier and Bill Craig? If not, you should check it out.
With regard to the so-called "drive-by types", I assume you're talking about theists who come on but don't stay long-term? Well, I'm not so bothered by that for multiple reasons. I've personally had long experience in venues like this, and most often what is run into, at least in my case, is a disproportionate response to what I say. So I might reply to one person, but then that one reply receives 10 or 15 other responses, each expecting a response of their own. And I guess what I mean is that engaging in that way can become quickly overwhelming. In addition, I also tend to run into what are purely rhetorical objections, which can be pretty frustrating. I have to believe that these kinds of things, and the fact that theists tend to be vastly outnumbered in a venue like this, simply don't lend themselves toward a long-term environment for the theist. I'm a pretty busy person myself, so I never know how often I'll be able to spend an hour or two at a time to sit and write lengthy and thoughtful responses. Obviously, I'll see what I can do, but I can't make any promises. The last forum I was in long-term was called DifferHonestly, but it was shut down by its creator "spblat".
Yeah, you understand pretty much what I meant by drive-by--they want to convert the heathens, make some statements that were sure to convert some and then leave. I did not think you were that type really, but who knows? No, I don't see you as a drive-by. But your point about being overwhelmed is accurate. You could spend your entire day here and still not address all who would post about your comments. Since this is an atheist board, you are viewed as 'red meat', so to speak, and all want to feed. :) Personally, I have no illusions of getting you to change your mind. So, when I find the opportunity to have a serious conversation about the bible and christiniaty in general I do so with the idea of sharpening my thoughts about some ideas, learning new facts, or changing my mind about a subject. And no, I have not seen the Carrier/Craig debate. If I can squeeze time from my main endeavor right now, RPG games, I'll do that. And you are correct about the Carrier book--it is lengthy (actually, it is only part 2 of a two part series--and I have not read the first part, Proving History, yet), and very heavily footnoted. I am now in the process of taking a close look at those footnotes. Hope you can manage to stick around for awhile.
RESPONSE â€" PART 1Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMI want to preface this with the statement that needless to say I am not accepting your basic premise that there is a god; this is simply a philosophical exercise. Nothing you say below has any meaning until you demonstrate the existence of your god first.
This is unfortunate. In an honest discussion, I’m expecting you or anyone else to buy into the Christian concept of God, for the sake of the argument, so that you have a better chance of understanding what I’m trying to convey. Your comment here suggests that whatever I say, you are stipulating that it is meaningless without my having already somehow convinced you of God’s existence. In that case, with anything I say being stipulated as meaningless, there would be no opportunity to demonstrate anything. Do you see the problem?
Ah well, in a good faith effort, I’ll continue for a bit.
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMNo, that's a deliberate misreading of what I said. I said it was an overreaction, and as a punishment entirely inappropriate. I have trimmed the rest as irrelevant, since there's no god for me to "pretend" isn't there. My parents gave me life; what you're saying is that they retain the right to kill me if I transgress against them since they gave me life.
Who would you be to determine what the appropriate reaction would be? Since you don’t and can’t possess this same prerogative, due to your nature as a human being, how would you even be able to determine such a thing? You have no common referent from which to draw, unless you begin comparing God’s prerogatives to that of a human being, which I’ve already repeatedly stated cannot be legitimately compared because they are so different. Human beings cannot own or create things in the same way that God can, so any analogy breaks down when pressed too far, as I’ve already talked about with regard to God having created all that has ever come into existence, whereas the human is always working with pre-existing matter that they’ve not created themselves. Since God isn’t even obligated to allow our existence to continue, the concept of an overreaction to a genuine wrong against Him doesn’t actually make sense, unless you’re involved in the confusion I’ve pointed out previously. The rest of your comment was simply further evidence that you are stipulating that your rational mind will not be allowed to be involved in the conversation.
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMYou need to make up your mind here. Either your god can do anything, or he can't. You've can't have it both ways.
Um, no I don’t. This is not about me trying to have it both ways. This is about you demonstrating that you actually don’t know what “omnipotence†refers to from a Christian perspective. In other words, you’ve inserted your own definition of omnipotence (i.e. that God can do ANYTHING!) rather than using the definition a knowledgeable Christian would give. Christians believe that God is omnipotent, which means that He can do anything that power can accomplish, consistent with His nature. So there are things that God cannot do. God cannot make a square circle, a one-ended stick, or a rock that so big He cannot lift it. God also cannot violate His nature. So for example, He cannot cease to exist or have a beginning.
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMYou also have a strange definition of 'justice' -- it appears to be "whatever god feels like doing whether it's relevant, proportional, appropriate, or just". I want to know in what possible way the original point -- having bears maul 42 children for teasing a man about being bald -- is a just and proper punishment. I state flatly that it was an evil act, and that whoever did it committed an act of evil. "Because god did it" does not magically make it 'not evil'.
The only reason that my use of the word justice is strange to you is because you are overlaying moral categories, as they apply to mankind, onto actions taken by God who is specifically not a human being and is the very source of morality and justice itself. So I am not and have never argued that morality is an arbitrary function of God’s power. Nor have I argued that God commands something because he is recognizing some basic moral law that is above or outside of Himself. Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His perfect nature. Morality is not a matter of command, but it is a matter of character, God’s character. Morality is not anterior to God or logically prior to Him, but it is rooted in His being. Something is not moral because God commands it, but God will always command moral things because His commands are the expression of His perfectly good character. The fact that you find His actions repugnant is more a function of your not recognizing either His existence or legitimate authority. It would be similar to a criminal being upset at the sentence given to him by a judge. The fact that whatever is being done doesn’t comport with what you think is relevant, proportional, appropriate, or just has no bearing on whether it is those things or not.
For example, I would,
as a human being never countenance the kind of punishment God meted out on those children and would find it both repugnant and immoral
coming from a human being. But the punishment didn’t come from a human being and there is an important difference between you and me. The difference is that I recognize that God has entirely different and higher authority and prerogatives than I or any man could ever have. For example, He created us, and He was under no obligation to even allow our existence to continue. What would obligate Him to that? Also, He has perfect knowledge of all the crimes committed against him, and I would suggest that every single teenager was guilty hundreds or thousands of times over of violating God’s law. You and I have none of that information. He could simply end their existence entirely with total justification. Would you have preferred that? The criminal rarely agrees with the justice meted out upon him, unless that criminal is truly repentant of His crime and recognizes the judge’s authority over him. But in the Christian context, those people take the offer of pardon offered by God through Jesus Christ, and justice is satisfied by Christ’s sacrifice or the judge having stepped down from the judge’s seat and taken the criminal’s punishment on Himself.
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMDo not presume to tell me when I mean 'can not' and when I mean 'will not'. I stand by 'can not'. It is not possible for me to accept that the action under discussion is right and moral for any entity.
I’m quite sure you meant
“cannotâ€, which is why I specifically didn’t take exception with what you meant. I took exception with the accuracy of what you meant. Why is that? Because when it comes to accepting a premise, the will is what is primarily in play. I know that is possible for people to accept all kinds of premises, but the acceptance of premises only becomes impossible when the will is imposed. That being the case, a more accurate rending is that you will not accept the premise, not that you cannot. Obviously, the fact that another person does accept the premise puts the lie to the idea that the premise
“CANNOT†be accepted. In other words, it’s not that it’s impossible for you to accept. You simply won’t…for whatever reasons you might have. This is a minor point, but I stand by my statement, since I know for certain that it is not impossible to accept a premise that I demonstrate acceptance of. And if I demonstrate that it can be accepted, it’s not possible that the premise truly cannot be accepted. It’s more accurate to say that you will not, and therefore, cannot accept the premise. So it’s more a function of your will than of the acceptability of the premise itself.
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMBut that's the necessary conclusion from what you've said: if your god does it, it's okay, because the rules are different for him. By what you've set up here, your god is completely within his rights to, say, send a pack of wolves after me if I fail to cross myself when passing in front of a church (yeah, I was raised Catholic, it was a reflex).
No, that’s not the necessary conclusion. The rules are not different for God, but they apply in a different way than they do for humans. Why? Because we are different kinds of beings. Humans are responding to an external objective moral referent, God’s moral law. God is not responding to something outside of or above himself. Instead, morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His perfect nature. Something is not moral because God commands it, but God will always command moral things because His commands are the expression of His perfectly good character. So yes, God is entirely justified in deciding to punish you for your crimes, and the method by which He chooses to accomplish that task is entirely up to Him. Having said that, I’m not aware of not crossing yourself when passing in front of a church being any significant part of God’s moral law, so I doubt that such an act would move God to take any action against you. In addition, it’s doubtful that something like that would constitute the only crime you’ve ever committed against God. Likely there are hundreds of thousands, if not multiple millions of transgressions of the law of God.
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMAnd this also takes us back to the charge of capriciousness, and by extension into the Problem of Evil when you consider all the transgressions great and small that happen every single day, that essentially go unpunished. Why? It implies a deity who just doesn't care, least of all when the harm is done in his name, or even ascribed to him. Where was his anger when some TV preachers claimed 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina were divine punishment for America (mainly for allowing gays and liberals and feminism to exist)? And if those were divinely inspired actions, well, his aim is abysmal.
So you have here a god that you say can take any action he feels like for any slight. And at the same time does absolutely nothing about the evil done in his name. Either he doesn't care--which makes him complicit in the wrongs done in his name--or he's not there to begin with.
Well, God created human beings with free will, and as a result of our free choices, we live in a fallen and imperfect world. The fact that transgressions great and small that happen every day essentially go unpunished is an incomplete picture. We are eternal beings who will have a conscious existence for eternity, regardless of whether we choose to spend that eternity with God or apart from Him. The fact that God doesn’t mete out punishment during our own considered acceptable timeframe does not mean that the transgression will actually go unpunished. The Bible speaks about a human life, relative to his eternal existence, being like the mere blink of an eye. The fact that all punishment is not handed down within that eye blink is no indication that it goes ultimately unpunished. If the so-called diety didn’t care, He wouldn’t have bothered to cloak Himself in human flesh and offer Himself up as a sacrifice in payment for the sins of those who would trust in that sacrifice and follow Him.
Regarding the TV preachers, who I agree are often nothing like what a true follower of Christ should be, read Matthew 7:12-23.
12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. 13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’And I’ll say again that because the actions of God do not happen when we want them to is no reflection on whether He cares or whether or not any particular act will ultimately go unpunished. God places a high importance on our freedom, and as such, doesn’t choose to intervene supernaturally as a normative event when it comes to human affairs. And so no, God cannot do whatever He wants, but He will not fail to punish wrong-doing or to reward trust placed in Him through Jesus Christ. That fact that you’ve moved the goal posts to comport with your time-frame rather than God’s isn’t a measure of anything beyond our human ignorance.
CONT’D
RESPONSE â€" PART 2Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMYeah, it was an awkward metaphor; I couldn't think of anything better. As its creator, I hereby destroy it. It never happened. If you see it on this thread, you're clearly hallucinating. I never wrote such a thing, so why are you responding to it?
Hahaha!
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMObviously, because a thing has an existence of its own independent of its creator -- not a life, but an existence. I'm kind of straying into meme theory here. If I wanted absolute control over it, I should never have released it to the public. There are limits to what a creator can do with a creation; even if I were to destroy it, I could not destroy the idea of it.
Yeah, if you gave it away, obviously you’d be correct, as you’d have relinquished ownership. But if you merely allowed it to be viewed, that would be no constraint on your ability to have it destroyed, re-framed, or whatever you wanted to do with it. What are the limits of what the creator can do with His creation? If He destroyed His creation, I guess you could say that He couldn’t destroy the idea in a sense, but why would that matter since the only mind in which the idea would continue to exist would be that of the creator?
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMAnd if I did have that level of control, then there is no such thing as free will. And without free will, your god is personally culpable for the wrongs done by his non-free willed creations, since without free will they cannot legitimately be said to have decided to commit the act. If there is free will, then there are by definition limits on what your god can and cannot do. The idea that a god could take control and chooses not to still means there's no free will since it could be revoked at any time, and it still places the problem of evil right back in your god's lap, where there are evil acts committed by his creations that he could have stopped and chose not to.
I don’t know what you mean with regard to their being no free will. There is free will, and there are limits on what God can and cannot do, but I’m not sure what you mean by that? Do you mean that the existence of human free will somehow limits God’s actions? If so, it would only be by God’s choice in order to achieve some end that He has in mind. I’m not sure I know what you mean here, but I would simply say that because something could be revoked doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. In addition, because God has decided to allow the free acts of free creatures play themselves out does not mean that wrongdoers will not be punished or that ultimate justice will not be served. The importance of our freedom does entail the allowance of our free acts of both good and evil to play out.
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMWhat part of the word 'absolute' is difficult to grasp? If something is absolutely wrong, then it's wrong no matter who does it. And if there are exceptions, then it is not absolute.
This is false, and we’ve already been over this ground. Just as a judge can legitimately order someone to be locked up for years on end and I cannot, due to our different levels of authority and corresponding prerogatives, so too can God do things that human beings cannot. As creator, He has a different level of authority (i.e. ultimate & total authority) and different corresponding prerogatives. In addition, I don’t think you understand absolutes very well. Human beings can choose to contravene God’s law, but God cannot violate His own character and nature from which the moral law is sourced. This means that the way in which the moral law applies and is responded to by human beings relative to God is quite different. You can only hold God to human standards of behavior by failing to recognize God as the being that He is and the authority and prerogatives that gives Him. God cannot do immoral things, but whether something is moral or not depends upon whether the moral law is being followed or not. So for example, it’s wrong to take innocent human life without proper justification. Why? Because that life does not belong to you, as you didn’t create it. As the creator of all life, God would possess an authority and prerogative that you or I do not.
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMYou also realize that you're defining and re-defining your god in a way we call special pleading -- everything holds for everything, except for this one thing, that the rules are completely different for this one thing.
No, it’s simply that the way in which the moral law applies is different when applied to entirely different entities. For example, does the moral law apply to animals? No? Why not? Aren’t moral laws absolute? Yes, but they do not apply in absolute senses to entirely different creatures. God still cannot violate His own nature in an absolute sense, so the moral law does apply, but only in ways that make sense, given His authority and corresponding prerogatives. God can create and punish for reasons and in ways that we as human beings cannot specifically because He is God. And because He is God, the very source of the moral law, He would not be transgressing the moral law because He cannot violate His own nature. So for example, God could not declare that Satan is God and instruct everyone should worship Him as the one true God. This would be a falsehood, which God could not declare due to His nature.
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMI assert that if the rules are that completely different, you're talking about an entity that can have no relation to us whatsoever, physically, mentally, emotionally, or ethically. Your god may as well be an incredibly advanced alien being for all the relevance he can have.
The rules are not different. They simply apply differently to ontologically different entities, just as moral laws apply differently to human beings than they do to animals. And no, given that He became incarnate in Jesus Christ and is the very source of the moral law itself, this statement would likely be a false one.
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMThen what use is this god as any sort of moral compass, if he can't or won't live up to the same rules as he expects everyone else to?
Were I a parent, and teaching my child that lying is bad, being repeatedly caught in obvious lies is only going to undermine that lesson. It's no different here.
Well, I’ve already been clear in that God is not a human being, and so He is able to do things that we cannot. I’ve also given human examples where a difference in the nature of our station or authority in life provides us with different prerogatives that other human beings do not have. Now that’s a limited variability within humanity. What must the variability be when comparing a finite creation with an infinite beginningless creator? Your misunderstanding of this concept doesn’t serve to validate your conclusion. Okay, so God is the creator of everything that has ever come into being and has perfect knowledge of every aspect of every particle that makes up His creation. You’re suggesting that God doesn’t have the right to do anything with His creation that the tiny finite and largely ignorant human beings that exist in a tiny segment of his overall creation can’t do…is that right? So if humans can’t withdraw a planet from the Universe, God can’t either. If humans can’t take a criminal’s life, God can’t either? So basically, since humans can’t create sentient reproducing life forms from matter that they also created themselves, God can’t either? Are you seeing the absurdity of what you’re saying? This is what happens when you don’t recognize what kind of entity God is and what authority and corresponding prerogatives that being that kind of entity would naturally give Him. This failure is always going to lead to this kind of absurdity.
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMNon-relevant, as this point would first require you to demonstrate that your god exists. Let's stay with the philosophical points.
Again, you are stipulating that it is non-relevant (i.e. meaningless) without my having already somehow convinced you of God’s existence. In that case, with anything I say about God being stipulated as non-relevant, there would be no opportunity to demonstrate anything. Don’t you see the fallacious and circular nature of what you’re doing? I must first demonstrate the existence of the thing I am trying to discuss with you before I can actually discuss it with you? The discussion is the means to that end of demonstration and therefore, it cannot be demonstrated prior to the discussion.
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMLet me see if I can boil this down a little further: what you appear to be saying is that your god cannot be capricious or unjust because you are a priori defining him as that which cannot be capricious or unjust. This is circular reasoning and special pleading both.
No, God’s character and nature are the very source of the moral law, and God always acts in harmony with His own nature. As such, if capriciousness and unjustness is immoral, then God cannot, by nature, participate.
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMSpeaking of circles, it rather brings us back to the quote that started all this. By your statement here, even though any typical human would say that having children mauled by bears for taunting a bald man is an evil act, it's justified because god did it and by definition anything he does--even if it's clearly something that a typical human would define as evil--is not evil simply because he did it.
It’s not justified because He did it. It’s justified because He possesses a different authority and prerogatives, as the creator, than a typical human being does. And even for the concept of evil to be taken seriously, one must presuppose some perfect moral standard by which is can be judged and differentiated from the good. So if there is an evil, what is the moral standard by which you are differentiating? As I’ve said before, it would immoral or evil for me to imprison someone, but what about when a judge does it? Does the moral quality of the imprisonment change? Yes, it does, and that’s because one person possesses that legitimate moral authority and prerogative while the other does not. What could be more clear?
Quote from: trdsf on May 19, 2015, 08:05:18 PMAlso, I'd like to ask you one simple question: do you, in your heart of hearts, believe that when I die I'm going to go to hell?
If you are guilty of crimes against God, and you’ve elected to reject God’s offer of pardon (i.e. de-merited favor offered to you), then yes, I believe God will punish you for your crimes. Punishment for your crimes will have been the outcome you chose, and He will not force Himself upon you. If you do not want to experience an incommensurable good (i.e. knowing God), He will not make you do so. However, His justice will not allow Him to avoid punishing you for your crimes. Christ suffered and paid for the crimes of all those who’ve violated God’s law but will repent and seek reconciliation with God. You have that same opportunity, and I don’t know how many times it’s been presented to you. If you choose to reject it, then you will be choosing an eternity separated from your creator spent in payment for your crimes.
(http://i.imgur.com/U4FEOMn.jpg)
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 20, 2015, 10:42:40 AM
This is unfortunate. In an honest discussion, I’m expecting you or anyone else to buy into the Christian concept of God, for the sake of the argument, so that you have a better chance of understanding what I’m trying to convey. Your comment here suggests that whatever I say, you are stipulating that it is meaningless without my having already somehow convinced you of God’s existence. In that case, with anything I say being stipulated as meaningless, there would be no opportunity to demonstrate anything. Do you see the problem?
Not necessarily a problem. I was raised Roman Catholic, and went to an Episcopalian college, so I'm well familiar with the Christian concepts of god, not only both Catholic and Protestant but also Wiccan, which I practiced for about 20 years (I'm shaky on Orthodoxy and Judaism and well weak on everyone else).
But I don't have to buy into the idea that there
is a god in order to have this conversation. It's the difference between asking me to accept that there is a god for the purposes of argument -- which I won't -- and asking me to accept that you believe there is one and pursuing the matter on that basis -- which I will. It's a semantic point, to be sure, but an important one conceptually.
This is also getting problematic because of the length of the responses... is there a particular point you want to pursue first or further, then we can come back to the others as we hash things out?
This is addressed to trdsf and Odoital778412 --I am really enjoying your conversation and will therefore stay out of it. It can overwhelming to like Odo to have to reply to several posters at once. I will be reading with great interest, but not interjecting much, if anything. I hope you two continue on. I for one, am most interested.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 20, 2015, 09:11:54 AM
Yeah, you understand pretty much what I meant by drive-by--they want to convert the heathens, make some statements that were sure to convert some and then leave. I did not think you were that type really, but who knows? No, I don't see you as a drive-by. But your point about being overwhelmed is accurate. You could spend your entire day here and still not address all who would post about your comments. Since this is an atheist board, you are viewed as 'red meat', so to speak, and all want to feed. :) Personally, I have no illusions of getting you to change your mind. So, when I find the opportunity to have a serious conversation about the bible and christiniaty in general I do so with the idea of sharpening my thoughts about some ideas, learning new facts, or changing my mind about a subject. And no, I have not seen the Carrier/Craig debate. If I can squeeze time from my main endeavor right now, RPG games, I'll do that. And you are correct about the Carrier book--it is lengthy (actually, it is only part 2 of a two part series--and I have not read the first part, Proving History, yet), and very heavily footnoted. I am now in the process of taking a close look at those footnotes. Hope you can manage to stick around for awhile.
Well, let me put your mind at ease right now. I'm specifically not here to attempt to convert anyone. I'm here to provide conversation and answer what questions, as a layman, I can for those that may suffer from intellectual and cultural/social subterfuge that might be getting in their way of stepping closer to a place where they might be acknowledge the existence of God or more. In short, my goals are quite modest. With regard to conversion, I think that is accomplished by God, not by individual believers. But as I'm sure you're aware, often the level of knowledge and teaching within the local church can be quite limited and superficial. In that sense, I'm not surprised that well-meaning but probably somewhat misguided Christians might come in looking to either score small rhetorical victories without actually engaging or to convert some hardened atheist for Christ.
Regarding Richard Carrier, his footnotes are one of the primary reasons that I've not been tempted to pick up the book. I've heard from more than one person that Carrier is so determined in his views that it sometimes causes him to misunderstand and/or misconstrue his source material, which means that in order to have a great deal of confidence in the writing, you'd have to get hold of all of the footnoted material and carefully decide whether his interpretation was accurate or biased by his strong views. That kind of a reputation worries me and makes the purchase of a large tome far less attractive.
Regarding the changing of views, I'm certainly not closed to that possibility, but you're right to be under no illusions about them changing. I've done enough study on my own and been exposed to virtually every popular atheist on the planet, so that my views, such as they are, are fairly firmly entrenched. Having said that, I am desirous of believing those things that both cohere together and correspond to the world in which I live. So far, Christianity fits that particular bill quite nicely. By that, I simply mean far more so than the other popular worldview alternatives (i.e. Postmodernism/Relativism and Modernism/Materialism/Naturalism/Darwinism).
I too hope that we can continue to chat.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 21, 2015, 11:02:06 AM
Regarding Richard Carrier, his footnotes are one of the primary reasons that I've not been tempted to pick up the book. I've heard from more than one person that Carrier is so determined in his views that it sometimes causes him to misunderstand and/or misconstrue his source material, which means that in order to have a great deal of confidence in the writing, you'd have to get hold of all of the footnoted material and carefully decide whether his interpretation was accurate or biased by his strong views. That kind of a reputation worries me and makes the purchase of a large tome far less attractive.
I too hope that we can continue to chat.
Thanks for the reply. Yes, Carrier does have his share of bias--but then there has never been a book written--including the bible--that does not have that problem. One of the issues that a historian has to take into account for every piece of written material they come across is they have to identify as best they can what the bias of the author is/was. Whenever I read a christian author I realize what his bias is and take that into account when looking at his evidence. I did the same for Carrier. He is a professional historian and very well aware of that problem and states that in his book. He is quite clear that there is a difference between proof of something and the possibility of something. If you read his conclusions carefully, he does not say his book provides proof of the ahistorical jesus, but that he was probably a myth. He uses math in his conclusions, which I have a hard time following. Which means I'll have to get his book Proving History where he goes in depth describing his method. BTW, I think a good source--even better than Amazon--is Abe's Books (google it)--one can often get books for less then $5 with no shipping since they sell used books as well as new.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 21, 2015, 11:53:25 AM
Thanks for the reply. Yes, Carrier does have his share of bias--but then there has never been a book written--including the bible--that does not have that problem. One of the issues that a historian has to take into account for every piece of written material they come across is they have to identify as best they can what the bias of the author is/was. Whenever I read a christian author I realize what his bias is and take that into account when looking at his evidence. I did the same for Carrier. He is a professional historian and very well aware of that problem and states that in his book. He is quite clear that there is a difference between proof of something and the possibility of something. If you read his conclusions carefully, he does not say his book provides proof of the ahistorical jesus, but that he was probably a myth. He uses math in his conclusions, which I have a hard time following. Which means I'll have to get his book Proving History where he goes in depth describing his method. BTW, I think a good source--even better than Amazon--is Abe's Books (google it)--one can often get books for less then $5 with no shipping since they sell used books as well as new.
My impression was that the problem went significantly beyond a well-meaning scholar who simply let his biases creep in. As you point out, this is a common occurrence, though good scholarship tries very hard to avoid this kind of thing. Having said that, I've not checked it out myself, so I am going on the word of others and the number of times I've heard the same complaint. I'll definitely check out Abe's books. Thanks!
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 02:56:02 AM
My impression was that the problem went significantly beyond a well-meaning scholar who simply let his biases creep in. As you point out, this is a common occurrence, though good scholarship tries very hard to avoid this kind of thing. Having said that, I've not checked it out myself, so I am going on the word of others and the number of times I've heard the same complaint. I'll definitely check out Abe's books. Thanks!
Let me give you a brief sample of Carrier's attitude about that and the body of work encompassed in his book. I will copy a bit of the book taken from the first and last pages of the book:
"Hence the point of this book is not to end the debate but to demonstrate that scholars need to take this hypothesis more seriously before dismissing it out of hand, and that they need much better arguments against it than they've heretofore deployed. ..........................................................For my biases are such as to make no difference what the result should be. I only want the truth to be settled. Nevertheless, all historians have biases, and only sound methods will prevent those from too greatly affecting our essential results.
I want to see a helpful critique of this book by objective, qualified experts who could live with the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist, but just don't think the case can be made, or made well enough to credit. And what I want from my critics is not useless hole punching but an alternative proposal: if my method is invalid, then what method is the correct one for resolving questions of historicty for any person,....................................Also correct any facts that are wrong, point out what I missed, and if my method then produces a different conclusion when those emendations are included, we will have progress. .................................And by the method I have deployed here, I have confirmed our intuitions in the study of Jesus are wrong. He did not exist. I have made my case. To all objective and qualified scholars, I appeal to you as a community: the ball is now in your court."
So, Carrier is willing for both his method and conclusion to be criticized. He has invited that reaction. So, what I need to do, I guess, is to now be more proactive in searching out those rebuttals.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 24, 2015, 10:38:28 AM
Let me give you a brief sample of Carrier's attitude about that and the body of work encompassed in his book. I will copy a bit of the book taken from the first and last pages of the book:
"Hence the point of this book is not to end the debate but to demonstrate that scholars need to take this hypothesis more seriously before dismissing it out of hand, and that they need much better arguments against it than they've heretofore deployed. ..........................................................For my biases are such as to make no difference what the result should be. I only want the truth to be settled. Nevertheless, all historians have biases, and only sound methods will prevent those from too greatly affecting our essential results.
I want to see a helpful critique of this book by objective, qualified experts who could live with the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist, but just don't think the case can be made, or made well enough to credit. And what I want from my critics is not useless hole punching but an alternative proposal: if my method is invalid, then what method is the correct one for resolving questions of historicty for any person,....................................Also correct any facts that are wrong, point out what I missed, and if my method then produces a different conclusion when those emendations are included, we will have progress. .................................And by the method I have deployed here, I have confirmed our intuitions in the study of Jesus are wrong. He did not exist. I have made my case. To all objective and qualified scholars, I appeal to you as a community: the ball is now in your court."
So, Carrier is willing for both his method and conclusion to be criticized. He has invited that reaction. So, what I need to do, I guess, is to now be more proactive in searching out those rebuttals.
Well, personally, I'm looking for a review by an opponent, specifically because I'm not sure that others would necessarily possess the incentive or motivation to actually go and check out all of the footnotes themselves, but I'd prefer it be by a scholar, rather than just a Christian author or apologist. In any case, I'll be waiting a bit, specifically to see how things develop. I'm aware that a few years back, Carrier still believed in a core of historical facts surrounding the Historical Jesus, but I think holding this minimalist position still made it difficult to undermine the salient details of the Biblical account. I can't know or be sure what led to Carrier's transformation into the more purely mythical stance he has now, but I'm interested in whether this kind of thing will take off in the scholarly world itself. I suspect that if there are signs of that, there will eventually be a book length treatment responding to the contents. We'll see though. Here are a few resources that touch on the topic, but are not specific to Carrier's work. I may have shared some of these in the past.
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael R. LiconaJesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard BauckhamThe Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition by Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. BoydThe Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. LiconaThe Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary R. HabermasCan We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions by Craig L. BlombergReinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. WallaceFabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels by Craig A. EvansPsychiatric Hypotheses for the Resurrection (http://itq.sagepub.com/content/80/2/157.full.pdf?ijkey=tFBCmpbGHa44r5K&keytype=finite)
(Incase it’s of interest to you…?)
Quote from: trdsf on May 21, 2015, 12:41:27 AM
Not necessarily a problem. I was raised Roman Catholic, and went to an Episcopalian college, so I'm well familiar with the Christian concepts of god, not only both Catholic and Protestant but also Wiccan, which I practiced for about 20 years (I'm shaky on Orthodoxy and Judaism and well weak on everyone else).
But I don't have to buy into the idea that there is a god in order to have this conversation. It's the difference between asking me to accept that there is a god for the purposes of argument -- which I won't -- and asking me to accept that you believe there is one and pursuing the matter on that basis -- which I will. It's a semantic point, to be sure, but an important one conceptually.
This is also getting problematic because of the length of the responses... is there a particular point you want to pursue first or further, then we can come back to the others as we hash things out?
I’ve met all kinds of people who’ve supposedly been a part of a religion for a long time who have very little actual understanding of its content. In my case, I’m thinking of Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism. Based upon how to you talk about the issue, it seems as though you actually don’t understand the Christian concept of God. When you respond to things like God’s actions, you respond as if God is merely another man, with no significant difference in nature, authority or prerogative. If you’re doing that, then you’re not actually responding to the Christian concept of God at all.
And yes, you are correct. You do not. However, what I’m asking is not controversial. It’s done in academia and in the courts all the time. It’s called
arguendo, where you assume, for the sake of an argument, certain premises even though you don’t necessary agree with them yourself. Now why is that? It’s in order that you can deepen the dialogue and move further in exploring the implications. If you don’t agree to assume certain things, provisionally, then any real exploration of the topic really isn’t possible. In other words, you’ve simply stipulated that you will not accept anything more than whatever superficial understanding of the topic you already have. Now if that’s your position, so be it, but I’m not asking anything controversial. I simply thought you were actually engaging in some real discussion on the topic. I guess I was wrong.
Yes, the point I would pursue further is the difference between a human being and God, from a Christian perspective. And I would like to explore that in terms of His nature, authority and prerogatives. I think an understanding of the differences would allow His actions to be seen in an entirely different light, analogous to the difference between the average person locking another person up for years on end and a judge doing so. One of those acts would be entirely unacceptable and the other would not, which illustrates that essentially the same act can be judged morally, entirely differently, one from the other, without the moral law itself changing at all. This same thing is true in the case of God.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 31, 2015, 05:54:43 AM
I’ve met all kinds of people who’ve supposedly been a part of a religion for a long time who have very little actual understanding of its content. In my case, I’m thinking of Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism. Based upon how to you talk about the issue, it seems as though you actually don’t understand the Christian concept of God. When you respond to things like God’s actions, you respond as if God is merely another man, with no significant difference in nature, authority or prerogative. If you’re doing that, then you’re not actually responding to the Christian concept of God at all.
At infinite risk of having this turn into another hydra of a thread (and you're already back to "No, you just don't understand"). Real quickly, no, I'm not responding to
your concept of god and the actions that your god might take. I am responding to
a Christian concept of god -- certainly the one I was raised with, and given that there are over 40,000 different types of Christianity, it is in no way possible to talk about
the nature of the Christian god. There's overlap, but not unanimity, and I trust you don't have the
hubris to claim that you and you alone can say what is and is not "the" Christian definition of things.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 31, 2015, 05:54:43 AM
And yes, you are correct. You do not. However, what I’m asking is not controversial. It’s done in academia and in the courts all the time. It’s called arguendo, where you assume, for the sake of an argument, certain premises even though you don’t necessary agree with them yourself. Now why is that? It’s in order that you can deepen the dialogue and move further in exploring the implications. If you don’t agree to assume certain things, provisionally, then any real exploration of the topic really isn’t possible. In other words, you’ve simply stipulated that you will not accept anything more than whatever superficial understanding of the topic you already have. Now if that’s your position, so be it, but I’m not asking anything controversial. I simply thought you were actually engaging in some real discussion on the topic. I guess I was wrong.
Actually, you're asking me to hand the match away before I even get my clubs out of the trunk. The question of the existence or non-existence of a general divine authority, or of a specific view as to the nature of that divine authority, is central to the whole debate here. If I stipulate that
even for the purposes of argument, that gives the whole debate away. I am actually engaging, but I am not engaging on those grounds.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 31, 2015, 05:54:43 AM
Yes, the point I would pursue further is the difference between a human being and God, from a Christian perspective. And I would like to explore that in terms of His nature, authority and prerogatives. I think an understanding of the differences would allow His actions to be seen in an entirely different light, analogous to the difference between the average person locking another person up for years on end and a judge doing so. One of those acts would be entirely unacceptable and the other would not, which illustrates that essentially the same act can be judged morally, entirely differently, one from the other, without the moral law itself changing at all. This same thing is true in the case of God.
This is the point I was hoping you'd follow up with; it's philosophically the chewiest.
The weakness in the judge metaphor is that a (human) judge is someone who is chosen by the people
to be judged from among their own number, either directly by election, or indirectly through elected representatives. Judicial authority can in principle be practiced by any person (in practice, it's limited essentially to lawyers, politicians, or lawyers who are politicians, but in principle any person), and their authority is granted ultimately by those over whom the judge will have authority.
And there was no election for god. So we're not talking about a judge/citizen relationship, we're talking about an outside force entirely.
And this raises two problems: first of all, as an outside source, how is there relevance to daily human life if this god is so much different from us?
The second brings us back to the bears and the forty-two children. If there is an absolute definition of good and evil, then an evil act is an evil act regardless of who does it. Otherwise, it's "Oh, it's okay for
me. Just do as I say, not as I do." And that's moral hypocrisy, by definition.