|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 30, 2023 11:15:10 GMT
"I don't believe there is no god, I lack the belief that there is one." Philosophers such as Antony Flew and Michael Martin have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. A lack of belief in a deity is not contingent on asserting one does not exist. "On our definition, an atheist is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not the reason for the rejection is the claim that “God exists” expresses a false proposition" Stanford Encylopaedia of Philosophy
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jul 21, 2023 12:23:36 GMT
In a response to “The Bible is hopelessly contradictory!” djorno said, "Only contradictory if you fail to study the context of the Bible or the cultural context." You say "context". I say, "Cherry Pick". Cherry picking is an essential trait of a good Christian. Let's see your "context" for this contradiction: In Ezekiel 4:12 Jehovah says to cook bread using dried human excrement as fuel. Doesn't the all-knowing Yahweh know anything about wood, oil, electricity, or methane? The contradiction comes a mere three sentences later when Lord says to use cattle s*** instead of human s***. Why did (s)he direct the use of human feces in the first place?
Why doesn't Pepperidge Farm or Arnold use cattle manure to cook the bread I buy at Safeway? After all, it's what Jehovah directed.
The road to atheism is littered with Bibles that have been read, cover-to-cover. (Andrew Seidel)
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 22, 2023 10:58:37 GMT
In a response to “The Bible is hopelessly contradictory!” djorno said, "Only contradictory if you fail to study the context of the Bible or the cultural context." You say "context". I say, "Cherry Pick". Cherry picking is an essential trait of a good Christian. You say “cherry pick”. I say, you’re the one cherry picking., You realize you’re exactly only proving my point about textual context and/or historical context? Ezekiel 4 is set during the siege of Jerusalem. The Babylonian armies had surrounded the city. In the ancient near east they used to use dried animal dung as fuel but since the inhabitants would have killed all the animals in the city for meat, there would’ve been very little animal dung left to use. God tells Ezekiel to use human dung, as animal dung was scarce given circumstances. Ezekiel complains to God, as he’d kept to the strict ceremonial dietary laws all his life and had never eaten unclean food. So God gave him dispensation to use cow dung instead. Not sure why you see a contradiction. Do you live in the ancient near east?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 22, 2023 19:11:28 GMT
You say "context". I say, "Cherry Pick". Cherry picking is an essential trait of a good Christian. You say “cherry pick”. I say, you’re the one cherry picking., You realize you’re exactly only proving my point about textual context and/or historical context? Ezekiel 4 is set during the siege of Jerusalem. The Babylonian armies had surrounded the city. In the ancient near east they used to use dried animal dung as fuel but since the inhabitants would have killed all the animals in the city for meat, there would’ve been very little animal dung left to use. God tells Ezekiel to use human dung, as animal dung was scarce given circumstances. Ezekiel complains to God, as he’d kept to the strict ceremonial dietary laws all his life and had never eaten unclean food. So God gave him dispensation to use cow dung instead. Not sure why you see a contradiction. Do you live in the ancient near east? Are you seriously suggesting that there are no contradictions at all in the Bible, in what is essentially a ragbag of texts by human authors at different times and in different cultures, only assembled and agreed on after a long history of editing, interpolation etc? I hope your creative exegesis and special pleading is in order.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 22, 2023 19:22:48 GMT
You say “cherry pick”. I say, you’re the one cherry picking., You realize you’re exactly only proving my point about textual context and/or historical context? Ezekiel 4 is set during the siege of Jerusalem. The Babylonian armies had surrounded the city. In the ancient near east they used to use dried animal dung as fuel but since the inhabitants would have killed all the animals in the city for meat, there would’ve been very little animal dung left to use. God tells Ezekiel to use human dung, as animal dung was scarce given circumstances. Ezekiel complains to God, as he’d kept to the strict ceremonial dietary laws all his life and had never eaten unclean food. So God gave him dispensation to use cow dung instead. Not sure why you see a contradiction. Do you live in the ancient near east? Are you seriously suggesting that there are no contradictions at all in the Bible, in what is essentially a ragbag of texts by human authors at different times and in different cultures, only assembled and agreed on after a long history of editing, interpolation etc? I hope your creative exegesis and special pleading is in order. I’m not aware of any. Most examples skeptics typically cite can easily be harmonized. Which ones did you have in mind?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 22, 2023 19:32:44 GMT
Are you seriously suggesting that there are no contradictions at all in the Bible, in what is essentially a ragbag of texts by human authors at different times and in different cultures, only assembled and agreed on after a long history of editing, interpolation etc? I hope your creative exegesis and special pleading is in order. I’m not aware of any. Most examples skeptics typically cite can easily be harmonized. Most? That still leaves some.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 22, 2023 19:40:31 GMT
I’m not aware of any. Most examples skeptics typically cite can easily be harmonized. Most? That still leaves some. Well I’m sure there are some examples skeptics cite that I haven’t heard before. May be you can help?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 22, 2023 19:45:03 GMT
Most? That still leaves some. Well I’m sure there are some examples skeptics cite that I haven’t heard before. May be you can help? But you said " Most examples skeptics typically cite can easily be harmonized." so presumably to make that assessment, you are talking of those you have already heard. Which of those are the hardest to reconcile?
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 22, 2023 19:49:13 GMT
Well I’m sure there are some examples skeptics cite that I haven’t heard before. May be you can help? But you said " Most examples skeptics typically cite can easily be harmonized." so presumably to make that assessment, you are talking of those you have already heard. Which of those are the hardest to reconcile? I meant of the ones I’d heard. Obviously I haven’t heard all of them. Do you have any in mind?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 22, 2023 19:52:49 GMT
But you said " Most examples skeptics typically cite can easily be harmonized." so presumably to make that assessment, you are talking of those you have already heard. Which of those are the hardest to reconcile? I meant of the ones I’d heard. Obviously I haven’t heard all of them. Do you have any in mind? Yes that's right; you said of the ones presumably you had heard only most were easily harmonized, so I am asking of those you have heard which are least easy to "harmonize" and why? It is a simple enough question.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 22, 2023 20:10:11 GMT
I meant of the ones I’d heard. Obviously I haven’t heard all of them. Do you have any in mind? Yes that's right; you said of the ones presumably you had heard only most were easily harmonized, so I am asking of those you have heard which are least easy to "harmonize" and why? It is a simple enough question. Again all the ones I’ve heard can be harmonized and I’ve heard most of them. I can’t harmonize the ones I haven’t heard, can I? You’re the one making the charge about biblical contradictions. The burden falls on you to make a case.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 22, 2023 20:15:53 GMT
Yes that's right; you said of the ones presumably you had heard only most were easily harmonized, so I am asking of those you have heard which are least easy to "harmonize" and why? It is a simple enough question. Again all the ones I’ve heard can be harmonized and I’ve heard most of them. I can’t harmonize the ones I haven’t heard, can I? You’re the one making the charge about biblical contradictions. The burden falls on you to make a case. But if you assert that only "most" can be easily "harmonized" then you must be aware of those which can't. I don't know why you can't identify which they might be if you are honest with yourself. And please don't say I have made a charge about anything. I have only pointed out the widely understood origins of the Bible and asked if, in that light, you still insisted there are no contradictions. Is there a problem?
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 22, 2023 20:24:37 GMT
Again all the ones I’ve heard can be harmonized and I’ve heard most of them. I can’t harmonize the ones I haven’t heard, can I? You’re the one making the charge about biblical contradictions. The burden falls on you to make a case. But if you assert that only "most" can be easily "harmonized" then you must be aware of those which can't. I don't know why you can't identify which they might be. And please don't say I have made a charge about anything. I have only pointed out the widely understood origins of the Bible and asked if, in that light, you still insisted there are no contradictions. Is there a problem? This is the last time I’m going to repeat myself. I’ve made it clear that by most I meant the ones I know of. I’m obviously not aware of every single alleged contradiction skeptics appeal to. Your initial reply to me was to challenge my assertion that the Bible doesn’t contain any contradictions when understood in light of their textual & cultural context. So unless you make your case on why you feel I’m wrong or disagree this will be my final response to you.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 22, 2023 20:48:07 GMT
But if you assert that only "most" can be easily "harmonized" then you must be aware of those which can't. I don't know why you can't identify which they might be. And please don't say I have made a charge about anything. I have only pointed out the widely understood origins of the Bible and asked if, in that light, you still insisted there are no contradictions. Is there a problem? This is the last time I’m going to repeat myself. I’ve made it clear that by most I meant the ones I know of. So you know that most can be easily harmonized out of those you have heard but can't - or won't - say anything of the remainder which cannot? Got it. An unwillngness to address all of those you have heard of when asked unfortunately feels rather evasive. Which is why we are talking of those you do know of, and upon which some you feel, sadly, unable to comment or choose from. It was actually that in the light of the textual history of the Bible why none ought not to be expected, a point you still haven't addressed. Perhaps you'd care to tell us now? It is hard to make a discussion with someone who cannot or does not want to articulate their full position when asked. But, moving on: How would you "harmonize" the two different accounts of the Nativity of Jesus? As I am sure you know, only the Gospels of Matthew and Luke offer narratives regarding the birth of Jesus. Both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the reign of King Herod, that his mother was named Mary and that her husband Joseph was descended from King David (although they disagree on details of the line of descent), and both deny Joseph's biological parenthood while treating the birth, or rather the conception, as divinely effected. Beyond this, they agree on very little. Matthew implies that Joseph already has his home in Bethlehem, while Luke states that he lived in Nazareth. In Matthew the angel speaks to Joseph, while Luke has one speaking to Mary. The two itineraries are quite different. According to Matthew, the Holy Family begins in Bethlehem, moves to Egypt following the birth, and settles in Nazareth, while according to Luke they begin in Nazareth, journey to Bethlehem for the birth, and immediately return to Nazareth. The two accounts cannot be harmonised into a single coherent narrative or traced to the same Q source. rarebible.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/contradictions-in-the-christmas-storyehrmanblog.org/a-key-contradiction-in-the-birth-narratives/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_of_Jesus#Biblical_narratives www.patheos.com/blogs/messyinspirations/2019/12/history-discrepancies-jesus-birth/And don't even get me started on where the Bible here is contradicted by history as when in Luke chapter 2 it says that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius, ... which was taken ten years after Herod died. Please let me know if the Nativity is an example which can easily be "easily harmonized" with a regular, reasonable, reading - or one of those, as yet undetermined by you, which in the event cannot. Special pleading and creative exegesis will be noted. Next up: can anyone see God? Bible says yes. Bible says No.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 23, 2023 0:22:26 GMT
This is the last time I’m going to repeat myself. I’ve made it clear that by most I meant the ones I know of. So you know that most can be easily harmonized out of those you have heard but can't - or won't - say anything of the remainder which cannot? Got it. An unwillngness to address all of those you have heard of when asked unfortunately feels rather evasive. Which is why we are talking of those you do know of, and upon which some you feel, sadly, unable to comment or choose from. It was actually that in the light of the textual history of the Bible why none ought not to be expected, a point you still haven't addressed. Perhaps you'd care to tell us now? It is hard to make a discussion with someone who cannot or does not want to articulate their full position when asked. But, moving on: How would you "harmonize" the two different accounts of the Nativity of Jesus? As I am sure you know, only the Gospels of Matthew and Luke offer narratives regarding the birth of Jesus. Both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the reign of King Herod, that his mother was named Mary and that her husband Joseph was descended from King David (although they disagree on details of the line of descent), and both deny Joseph's biological parenthood while treating the birth, or rather the conception, as divinely effected. Beyond this, they agree on very little. Matthew implies that Joseph already has his home in Bethlehem, while Luke states that he lived in Nazareth. In Matthew the angel speaks to Joseph, while Luke has one speaking to Mary. The two itineraries are quite different. According to Matthew, the Holy Family begins in Bethlehem, moves to Egypt following the birth, and settles in Nazareth, while according to Luke they begin in Nazareth, journey to Bethlehem for the birth, and immediately return to Nazareth. The two accounts cannot be harmonised into a single coherent narrative or traced to the same Q source. rarebible.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/contradictions-in-the-christmas-storyehrmanblog.org/a-key-contradiction-in-the-birth-narratives/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_of_Jesus#Biblical_narratives www.patheos.com/blogs/messyinspirations/2019/12/history-discrepancies-jesus-birth/And don't even get me started on where the Bible here is contradicted by history as when in Luke chapter 2 it says that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius, ... which was taken ten years after Herod died. Please let me know if the Nativity is an example which can easily be "easily harmonized" with a regular, reasonable, reading - or one of those, as yet undetermined by you, which in the event cannot. Special pleading and creative exegesis will be noted. Next up: can anyone see God? Bible says yes. Bible says No. “” Matthew implies that Joseph already has his home in Bethlehem, while Luke states that he lived in Nazareth. The two itineraries are quite different. According to Matthew, the Holy Family begins in Bethlehem, moves to Egypt following the birth, and settles in Nazareth, while according to Luke they begin in Nazareth, journey to Bethlehem for the birth, and immediately return to Nazareth. The two accounts cannot be harmonised into a single coherent narrative or traced to the same Q source. “” www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html“” In Matthew the angel speaks to Joseph, while Luke has one speaking to Mary “” Two different visitations on different occasions by different angels. In Matthew Joseph, who is contemplating divorcing Mary due being unwilling to put her to shame, is visited in dream by an “angel of the Lord” to reassure him that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit and that he should follow through and take Mary as his wife. In Luke Mary is visited by the Angel Gabriel in person who tells her that she will conceive and give birth to a Son. No contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 23, 2023 8:30:45 GMT
We know Spider-man was written as a work of fiction. The people that were writing about Jesus wrote about him as if was a historical figure. Every early Christian, plus the likes of Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Lucian, Josephus etc, they all wrote about him as if he was a historical person. Secondly, during the time of Jesus, the disciples ie the first Christians were willing to die for Jesus and the truth of Christianity. You’re not gonna get people today willing to die for the truth of Spider-man. That argument is generally put forth as a counter to Christians who claim that confirming certain historical facts is tantamount to proving the miraculous claims such as the resurrection, as if the entire genre of historical fiction didn't exist even long before The Bible. The Spider-Man argument is pointing that confirming historical facts like those concerning the location the story takes place in have no bearing on the veracity of the more salient aspects of the story. It's not even specifically an argument against the existence of the historical Jesus. There's also zero evidence that any early Christians/disciples died FOR their their beliefs. Early Christians were often persecuted and prosecuted, yes, but there's no evidence it was for their Christian beliefs as opposed to (like Jesus) being perceived as political troublemakers; nor is there any evidence they were given opportunities to recant to begin with. As said previously, belief also says nothing about the truth of the belief. People convinced of wrong things for bad reasons all the time. What’s considered extraordinary? How do we measure what’s extraordinary? Sounds completely subjective to the person. Depends on what you mean by "subjective." Subjective as in they're rooted in human perception? Sure, by that measure the fundamentals of all epistemology are subjective. Subjective as in any individual perceptions are as likely to be accurate as any other? Then, no, they aren't. We have billions of documented deaths, and among those billions of documented deaths we have zero indisputably confirmed resurrections. In your own life I'm sure you've known (directly or indirectly) many people who've died, and I'm sure you'd agree none came back. So it doesn't get more "ordinary" than deaths followed by non-resurrections. A death followed by a resurrection would be "extraordinary" almost definitionally given the statistics on the matter. In fact, if resurrections weren't extraordinary, we'd have no reason to think there was anything special about those whom were supposedly resurrected. If what supposedly happened to Jesus could happen to a regular Joe on any given Tuesday then that wouldn't be much of an argument for Jesus being divine. The entire point of the resurrection is to paint Jesus as extraordinary, just as in all the resurrection myths that preceded him. Give me empirical evidence for the claim that you only need empirical evidence? Axioms don't require empirical evidence, but just as you can't start with any random basis for "extraordinary" merely because it's subjective and think it's accurate, you can't start with any random axioms and think they meaningfully reflect reality. So the question then becomes: if you don't want to build your epistemology on empiricism, what do you want to build it on? You might then say "reason and logic!" but reason and logic are just systems of inferential rules for how to treat sets of propositions: where do you get the truthful propositions from if not from the empirical world? Even when it comes to reason and logic themselves, it's often the case that what we label as "reasonable" and "logical" we do so because they're immensely useful for modeling the empirical world. If the empirical world was fundamentally different so that, eg, the peano axioms could not be used to model or predict anything we experienced, would we accept the peano axioms as truths? It may be the case that some logical principles precede any empiricism merely because they refer to consistencies within the system itself, but these axioms for internal consistency tells us nothing about the external world, and most religious claims involve the external world. "Was Jesus resurrected?" isn't a question that can be answered by reason and logic alone without evidence pertaining to the truth of the claim, and that includes both specific evidence for Jesus's resurrection, and more general evidence about resurrections in general, or even about the nature of such claims in general. There’s different types of evidence. It’s perfectly possible, and, often the case, to come to reasonable conclusions without empirical evidence. Examples needed. Keep in mind I still consider reasoning built upon previous examples of empirical evidence to still be under the category of empirical evidence. Then the question just becomes the extent to which such reasoning based on previous empirical examples can be utilized. So what? How many different views are there on the theory of evolution? First, it would really depend on what you mean by "views" on the theory of evolution. The fundamental theory isn't doubted by almost any scientists working within any relevant field. The differing views that exist remain in parts that we still don't fully understand, like whether or not group selection is a plausible mechanism in addition to gene selection. Such ideas aren't easy to test for. However, there's a major difference between science and religion is that science isn't pretending it isn't the work of fallible, ignorant humans trying to understand a complex world, whereas The Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God, and if that's so one would expect such an inspired Word of God to not be delivered in a manner that causes such massive subjective disagreements over interpretation. When scientists disagree, they always keep in mind that experiment and empirical evidence is the ultimate arbiter/settler of who's right and wrong, while in religion there are no such tests; just multiple sides endlessly yelling at each other and (often) going to war over who's right/wrong. Basically, you can't compare an acknowledged and fallible human endeavor with what one should expect from the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe. Even prominent atheist philosophers admit there is evidence for Christianity and God, just that it might not be enough for them. This comes down to how one defines evidence and I have a more rigorous definition than most. I've yet to see any evidence offered that meets that rigorous definition. Most "evidence" for Christianity comes either in the form of arguments (arguments aren't evidence; they can contain evidence, but they aren't evidence themselves) or in a kind of post-hoc retrofitting to whatever evidence is found. You can't flip a coin 10 times and then argue that sequence is evidence for a programmer that programmed that coin to flip that sequence 10 times, yet that describes what most all evidence for various religions consist of. Further, for there to be evidence for something you have to allow for the opposite to be evidence against it; you can't have it both ways, which religious people usually try to do. You’re an atheist just because of your friends, you just wanna fit it! See how easy it is to simplify a worldview like that? Statistically your argument doesn't work. It's very easy to look at global statistics and observe that religious belief hugely correlates to that of the predominant beliefs of the local culture/society. While the same is true for atheist/secular societies, religious societies vastly outnumber atheist/secular, so most atheists are going against the prevailing views of their society/culture. For the majority of atheists I've known, including myself, most were surrounded by religious believers, and among their greatest fears were being outcast when they "came out" as atheist. Such stories are much, much, much rarer among religious believers just due to sheer numbers. It's difficult in the western world to find people who came to belief when all their family/friends were atheists. Maybe you could find such examples in the Nordic countries where atheism is much more common. Not only do we have great first century evidence for the existence of Jesus. There’s a reason almost every teaching historian at an accredited university thinks that Jesus existed. Only tinfoil hat wearing contrarians with an axe to grind like Richard Carrier think otherwise. First, I agree that there was probably some historical Jesus: I just think the version we have in The Bible is full of legendary embellishments due to word-of-mouth oral storytelling traditions that happened for decades before it was ever written down by non eye-witnesses relying on what would amount to hearsay in legal parlance. Second, agree with him or not, Richard Carrier is not a "tinfoil hat wearing contrarian." He and Bart Ehrman, who is arguably the most widely read, studied, respected, etc. scholar on New Testament history studies had a long (and mostly respectful) debate/discussion on this, and like most things it comes down to their differing epistemic foundations; both of which are more reasonable than the vast majority of believers. Only contradictory if you fail to study the context of the Bible or the cultural context. Historians who spend their lives studying The Bible in its historical context agree there are contradictions. This is not a controversial point among historians; it's only debated by fundamentalists, the types that serious historians don't take seriously because they are so obviously ideologically biased. What the women do at the empty tomb is perhaps the easiest example: The women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples (Matthew 28:8). When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others (Luke 24:9). Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (Mark 16:8) The only "argument" against this is the unproven/unevidenced assertion that the passage in Mark is not complete, and that whatever originally came after it was meant to contradict it. That argument is possible but there's simply no evidence for it, so the only reason to believe it is because you want the passages to harmonize. As-is it stands as a blatant contradiction that no current evidenced hypotheses can harmonize. We posit that God is the best explanation of the data available to us. There’s numerous examples of that from scientists and the metaphysical world. When your God can explain anything and everything it explains nothing. When Einstein "posited" General Relativity he gave an incredibly precise calculation of how the light of stars should be displaced during an eclipse, and astronomers tested his predictions, found out he was right, and since then we've used his equations in everything from cell-phones to satellites. If you can give any examples of anything remotely similar to this with God then I'll consider it an explanation rather than what it is: an un-evidenced (or, at best, very poorly evidenced) hypothesis. Most people take "explanation" to mean nothing more than "whatever makes sense to me," but as with "evidence" I require more from my explanations, recognizing that my intuitive sense-making has been biased by millions of years of evolution that cares far more about be replicating my genes than understanding the truths of reality.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 23, 2023 8:36:52 GMT
What gets me is the double standards of 'The Bible is a fairy tale for children/we must ban it because it's pornographic and violent and traumatizing to the same children who laugh at R-rated movies'. I've always wondered why some people get all freaked out by nudity, same sex marriage and discussions of evolution, yet cling to the Bible for it's endorsement of slavery for non Jews, violence and general condemnation of non-believers. And plenty of sex and incest to boot. Eliezer Yudkowsky once put this point very well: "Intrinsically, there’s nothing small about the ethical problem with slaughtering thousands of innocent first-born male children to convince an unelected Pharaoh to release slaves who logically could have been teleported out of the country. It should be more glaring than the comparatively trivial scientific error of saying that grasshoppers have four legs. And yet, if you say the Earth is flat, people will look at you like you’re crazy. But if you say the Bible is your source of ethics, women will not slap you. Most people’s concept of rationality is determined by what they think they can get away with; they think they can get away with endorsing Bible ethics; and so it only requires a manageable effort of self-deception for them to overlook the Bible’s moral problems. Everyone has agreed not to notice the elephant in the living room, and this state of affairs can sustain itself for a time." www.lesswrong.com/posts/fAuWLS7RKWD2npBFR/religion-s-claim-to-be-non-disprovable
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 23, 2023 11:32:57 GMT
“” Matthew implies that Joseph already has his home in Bethlehem, while Luke states that he lived in Nazareth. The two itineraries are quite different. According to Matthew, the Holy Family begins in Bethlehem, moves to Egypt following the birth, and settles in Nazareth, while according to Luke they begin in Nazareth, journey to Bethlehem for the birth, and immediately return to Nazareth. The two accounts cannot be harmonised into a single coherent narrative or traced to the same Q source. “” www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.htmlIs that the best you have, a single apologists site which, even there, has to finally admit, illuminatingly "The question then is, does Luke’s narrative allow for enough time for a trip to Egypt? Between the circumcision of Jesus and the trip to the temple was 32 days—about a month. Trying to fit a trip to Egypt and back in that time frame is problematic. A better way to reconcile Matthew’s and Luke’s narratives is to place the flight to Egypt after Jesus’ appearance in the temple. " ? (Even though the issue is not so much the time necessary to get somewhere as the mere appearance of two claimed journeys, side by side - but, moving on:) In other words apologists are forced to rearrange itineraries to make things fit, for which there is no internal evidence, to "harmonize" and go against any regular reading of the two texts set side by side. In the light of things this seems like creative exegesis I can only repeat claims from Wiki, there substantiated, that "many modern scholars consider the birth narratives unhistorical because they are laced with theology and present two different accounts which cannot be harmonised into a single coherent narrative... Many scholars do not see the Luke and Matthew nativity stories as historically factual,.. More generally, according to (for example) Karl Rahner (German Jesuit priest and theologian, considered to be one of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century) the evangelists show little interest in synchronizing the episodes of the birth or subsequent life of Jesus with the secular history of the age. As a result, modern scholars do not use much of the birth narratives for historical information." In other words avoiding contradiction was not of primary interest when the purpose of the text was theological rather than historical. Moreover Géza Vermes ( scholar who specialized in the field of the history of religion, particularly ancient Judaism and early Christianity) and E. P. Sanders (a major scholar in the scholarship on the historical Jesus) dismiss the accounts as pious fiction. Of course just because one is an authority does not mean they are necessarily right. Merely that they are less likely to be wrong, and probably less likely to be biased and more academically rigorous than some apologetics website, intent on explaining thing away for the comfort of concerned inerrantist fundamentalists. Next up: can one see God? 1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. but then, er: Exodus 11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." This despite Him telling Moses elsewhere that " But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” (33:20) before just showing him His rear. But even then 1 John does not say "... except for a glimpse of God's rear end". In fact there's a quite few verses in the Bible that say that man can’t see God besides that of Exodus above: John 1:18 ["No man hath seen God at any time"]; 1 Timothy 6:14–16 ["[God]whom no one has ever seen or can see]; 1 John 4:12 ["No one has ever seen God"]). These verses obviously contradict quite a few other Bible verses that say that men—such as Jacob, Abraham, Moses, and Isaiah—have indeed all 'seen God' (see Genesis 18:1; 32:30; Exodus 33:11 above; Isaiah 6:1). Please in replying do not use the excuse that the verses imply hidden conditionals (ie they actually mean no one can see God ".. except the righteous", for instance) which go against plain readings and so would be creative exegesis*. I might add that atheists like myself have seen God too - in fact, right though Him... Incidentally if no one can see God, then that rules out Jesus as (Mr "I am..") as the deity incarnate, does it not? Next up: does God send calamity or not? Bible says no, God says yes. *creative exegesis: the exploitation of perceived loopholes in scriptural text in order to gain advantage or present it in a misleadingly favourable light.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 23, 2023 12:28:20 GMT
“” Matthew implies that Joseph already has his home in Bethlehem, while Luke states that he lived in Nazareth. The two itineraries are quite different. According to Matthew, the Holy Family begins in Bethlehem, moves to Egypt following the birth, and settles in Nazareth, while according to Luke they begin in Nazareth, journey to Bethlehem for the birth, and immediately return to Nazareth. The two accounts cannot be harmonised into a single coherent narrative or traced to the same Q source. “” www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.htmlIs that the best you have, a single apologists site which, even there, has to finally admit, illuminatingly "The question then is, does Luke’s narrative allow for enough time for a trip to Egypt? Between the circumcision of Jesus and the trip to the temple was 32 days—about a month. Trying to fit a trip to Egypt and back in that time frame is problematic. A better way to reconcile Matthew’s and Luke’s narratives is to place the flight to Egypt after Jesus’ appearance in the temple. " ? (Even though the issue is not so much the time necessary to get somewhere as the mere appearance of two claimed journeys, side by side - but, moving on:) In other words apologists are forced to rearrange itineraries to make things fit, for which there is no internal evidence, to "harmonize" and go against any regular reading of the two texts set side by side. In the light of things this seems like creative exegesis I can only repeat claims from Wiki, there substantiated, that "many modern scholars consider the birth narratives unhistorical because they are laced with theology and present two different accounts which cannot be harmonised into a single coherent narrative... Many scholars do not see the Luke and Matthew nativity stories as historically factual,.. More generally, according to (for example) Karl Rahner (German Jesuit priest and theologian, considered to be one of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century) the evangelists show little interest in synchronizing the episodes of the birth or subsequent life of Jesus with the secular history of the age. As a result, modern scholars do not use much of the birth narratives for historical information." In other words avoiding contradiction was not of primary interest when the purpose of the text was theological rather than historical. Moreover Géza Vermes ( scholar who specialized in the field of the history of religion, particularly ancient Judaism and early Christianity) and E. P. Sanders (a major scholar in the scholarship on the historical Jesus) dismiss the accounts as pious fiction. Of course just because one is an authority does not mean they are necessarily right. Merely that they are less likely to be wrong, and probably less likely to be biased and more academically rigorous than some apologetics website, intent on explaining thing away for the comfort of concerned inerrantist fundamentalists. Next up: can one see God? 1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. but then, er: Exodus 11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." This despite Him telling Moses elsewhere that " But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” (33:20) before just showing him His rear. But even then 1 John does not say "... except for a glimpse of God's rear end". In fact there's a quite few verses in the Bible that say that man can’t see God besides that of Exodus above: John 1:18 ["No man hath seen God at any time"]; 1 Timothy 6:14–16 ["[God]whom no one has ever seen or can see]; 1 John 4:12 ["No one has ever seen God"]). These verses obviously contradict quite a few other Bible verses that say that men—such as Jacob, Abraham, Moses, and Isaiah—have indeed all 'seen God' (see Genesis 18:1; 32:30; Exodus 33:11; Isaiah 6:1). Please in replying do not use the excuse that the verses imply hidden conditionals (ie they actually mean no one can see God ".. except the righteous" for instance) which goes against plain reading and so would be special pleading. I might add that atheists like myself have seen God too - in fact, right though Him... Incidentally if no one can see God, then that rules out Jesus as ("I am..") as the deity incarnate, does it not? No man has or can see God the Father IN ALL HIS FULL GLORY. Throughout the OT God transformed himself and appeared to people through images, visions, theophanies, glimpses etc. But no can see Him in all his full glory and live. No contradiction. Could you elaborate please.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 23, 2023 12:34:19 GMT
I've always wondered why some people get all freaked out by nudity, same sex marriage and discussions of evolution, yet cling to the Bible for it's endorsement of slavery for non Jews, violence and general condemnation of non-believers. And plenty of sex and incest to boot. Eliezer Yudkowsky once put this point very well: "Intrinsically, there’s nothing small about the ethical problem with slaughtering thousands of innocent first-born male children to convince an unelected Pharaoh to release slaves who logically could have been teleported out of the country. It should be more glaring than the comparatively trivial scientific error of saying that grasshoppers have four legs. And yet, if you say the Earth is flat, people will look at you like you’re crazy. But if you say the Bible is your source of ethics, women will not slap you. Most people’s concept of rationality is determined by what they think they can get away with; they think they can get away with endorsing Bible ethics; and so it only requires a manageable effort of self-deception for them to overlook the Bible’s moral problems. Everyone has agreed not to notice the elephant in the living room, and this state of affairs can sustain itself for a time." www.lesswrong.com/posts/fAuWLS7RKWD2npBFR/religion-s-claim-to-be-non-disprovableThe most common answer by biblical apologists to the cruelties of scripture is that what ever God says, goes, and so are inherently justified, especially as the end justifies the means. But it does leave them looking morally very uncomfortable when matters include genocide and rape.
|
|