|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 21, 2018 15:11:48 GMT
tpfkar Just to jump in here for a bit, I think gadreel /@zackbop and @graham / general313 / cupcakes are talking past each other a bit. There's a difference between the perspectives of Biblical scholars (many of which are atheists and are essentially just historians and/or Lit majors focusing on The Bible) who are primarily interested in the minutiae of historical context/facts or the nuances of the original language and the various denominations and what they preach/focus on. The latter isn't necessarily--perhaps even rarely--informed by the former to any serious degree, but is formed more out of their own feelings about Biblical matters, and they're more likely to get factual matters dead wrong (Biblical literalism, eg). It's like the difference between film scholars VS critics VS viewers. Viewers and critics are typically more concerned with qualitative judgments while scholars are more concerned with context, history, technique, etc. I don't know if scholars can say for certain what parts of The Bible were meant literally VS metaphorically, but they're more informed about when it was written, by whom, for what purpose, and to make comparisons with similar works of the time in order to make highly educated guesses as to what's going on. I doubt many scholars think Genesis was meant literally. Well, the real question is were those historians... dun dun DUNN... ɯıןıʇɐuʇ ɐʇɥǝısʇs?!??
Tape Song |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 21, 2018 15:14:14 GMT
tpfkar Just to jump in here for a bit, I think gadreel /@zackbop and @graham / general313 / cupcakes are talking past each other a bit. There's a difference between the perspectives of Biblical scholars (many of which are atheists and are essentially just historians and/or Lit majors focusing on The Bible) who are primarily interested in the minutiae of historical context/facts or the nuances of the original language and the various denominations and what they preach/focus on. The latter isn't necessarily--perhaps even rarely--informed by the former to any serious degree, but is formed more out of their own feelings about Biblical matters, and they're more likely to get factual matters dead wrong (Biblical literalism, eg). It's like the difference between film scholars VS critics VS viewers. Viewers and critics are typically more concerned with qualitative judgments while scholars are more concerned with context, history, technique, etc. I don't know if scholars can say for certain what parts of The Bible were meant literally VS metaphorically, but they're more informed about when it was written, by whom, for what purpose, and to make comparisons with similar works of the time in order to make highly educated guesses as to what's going on. I doubt many scholars think Genesis was meant literally. ?!??
lolwut? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 21, 2018 15:23:53 GMT
tpfkar Doesn't take "militant atheists" to note that the vast bulk of those pushing it have treated it as both coherent and inviolate. 
Echo Home |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 21, 2018 15:32:30 GMT
tpfkar Doesn't take "militant atheists" to note that the vast bulk of those pushing it have treated it as both coherent and inviolate.
Echo HomeI really have no idea of the ratio (vast majority, majority, etc.) of how those "pushing it" are "treating it" as; I just know there's a difference between them and scholars. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 21, 2018 15:52:57 GMT
tpfkar Doesn't take "militant atheists" to note that the vast bulk of those pushing it have treated it as both coherent and inviolate.
Echo HomeI really have no idea of the ratio (vast majority, majority, etc.) of how those "pushing it" are "treating it" as; I just know there's a difference between them and scholars. And for my part I don't care that scholars, "militant atheist" or not, generally understand what most anybody not beholden to it do that it is in fact a self-contradictory immoral mess cobbled-together for purpose, and that of course not just "fundamentalists" and "militant atheists" present it as both coherent and inviolate.
Doing It to Death |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 21, 2018 16:06:57 GMT
tpfkar I really have no idea of the ratio (vast majority, majority, etc.) of how those "pushing it" are "treating it" as; I just know there's a difference between them and scholars. And for my part I don't care that scholars, "militant atheist" or not, generally understand what most anybody not beholden to it do that it is in fact a self-contradictory immoral mess cobbled-together for purpose, and that of course not just "fundamentalists" and "militant atheists" present it as both coherent and inviolate.
Doing It to DeathIn terms of that, how are you defining "fundamentalist" if not as someone who presents The Bible as coherent and inviolate? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 21, 2018 16:14:15 GMT
tpfkar And for my part I don't care that scholars, "militant atheist" or not, generally understand what most anybody not beholden to it do that it is in fact a self-contradictory immoral mess cobbled-together for purpose, and that of course not just "fundamentalists" and "militant atheists" present it as both coherent and inviolate.
Doing It to DeathIn terms of that, how are you defining "fundamentalist" if not as someone who presents The Bible as coherent and inviolate? Fundamentalism usually implies a literalism, and not continual retrenchment in the attempt to prop up the coherence and "truth" of a work. In any case, all irrelevant to the fact that it certainly doesn't take "militant atheists" to note that the bulk of faithful have presented it as both coherent and inviolate.
Impossible Tracks |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 21, 2018 16:22:10 GMT
tpfkar In terms of that, how are you defining "fundamentalist" if not as someone who presents The Bible as coherent and inviolate? Fundamentalism usually implies a literalism, and not continual retrenchment in the attempt to prop up the coherence and "truth" of a work. In any case, all irrelevant to the fact that it certainly doesn't take "militant atheists" to note that the bulk of faithful have presented it as both coherent and inviolate.
Impossible TracksSo non-fundamentalists would be those that don't take it all literally, and you think the majority of non-literalists would still find it coherent and inviolable? I'm not certain about that. In any case, I'd certainly agree it doesn't take "militant atheists" to claim that. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 21, 2018 16:37:56 GMT
tpfkar Fundamentalism usually implies a literalism, and not continual retrenchment in the attempt to prop up the coherence and "truth" of a work. In any case, all irrelevant to the fact that it certainly doesn't take "militant atheists" to note that the bulk of faithful have presented it as both coherent and inviolate.
Impossible TracksSo non-fundamentalists would be those that don't take it all literally, and you think the majority of non-literalists would still find it coherent and inviolable? I'm not certain about that. In any case, I'd certainly agree it doesn't take "militant atheists" to claim that. I'm pretty certain that your chance of getting "not coherent" and "sorta the truth" either from clerics or the wider flock is vanishingly small.
Heart of a Dog |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 21, 2018 17:49:50 GMT
tpfkar Bull shit. It is presented as a coherent work in the same way that the collection of shakespeares work in one volume is coherent, no real studier of the bible thinks the books are to be interpreted in the same way or treated in the same way. Bull chutney. The Bible has always mostly been presented as "The Word" by the vast majority of the faithful, for the most part inviolate, and both the glaring contradictions and gross immoralities chanted away with howls of "context".
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.I don't agree at all, I challenge you to find me someone that interprets psalms, genesis and matthew in the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 21, 2018 17:51:23 GMT
Bull shit. It is presented as a coherent work in the same way that the collection of shakespeares work in one volume is coherent, no real studier of the bible thinks the books are to be interpreted in the same way or treated in the same way. What abut the 'inspired by God' bit? Isn't that a circular argument? The Bible says it is inspired by God so it is inspired by God? I don't think that the any parts of the bible are inspired by God™ because they say they are I also don't recall mentioning inspiration. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 21, 2018 17:57:09 GMT
Just to jump in here for a bit, I think gadreel /@zackbop and @graham / general313 / cupcakes are talking past each other a bit. There's a difference between the perspectives of Biblical scholars (many of which are atheists and are essentially just historians and/or Lit majors focusing on The Bible) who are primarily interested in the minutiae of historical context/facts or the nuances of the original language and the various denominations and what they preach/focus on. The latter isn't necessarily--perhaps even rarely--informed by the former to any serious degree, but is formed more out of their own feelings about Biblical matters, and they're more likely to get factual matters dead wrong (Biblical literalism, eg). It's like the difference between film scholars VS critics VS viewers. Viewers and critics are typically more concerned with qualitative judgments while scholars are more concerned with context, history, technique, etc. I don't know if scholars can say for certain what parts of The Bible were meant literally VS metaphorically, but they're more informed about when it was written, by whom, for what purpose, and to make comparisons with similar works of the time in order to make highly educated guesses as to what's going on. I doubt many scholars think Genesis was meant literally. Fair observation, certainly that is the case in the majority of the history of the church, I like to think the religion did not start out that way, and that we are moving back towards a better understanding by the masses. I still find it hard to think that people ever treated all the books of the bible in the same way, but I suppose most people (even church goers) have a limited exposure to the bible, reading only genesis and the gospels for example. Having said that this conversation is really more inclined to actual thought as opposed to what the masses have accepted, at least that is my interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 22, 2018 1:45:12 GMT
tpfkar So non-fundamentalists would be those that don't take it all literally, and you think the majority of non-literalists would still find it coherent and inviolable? I'm not certain about that. In any case, I'd certainly agree it doesn't take "militant atheists" to claim that. I'm pretty certain that your chance of getting "not coherent" and "sorta the truth" either from clerics or the wider flock is vanishingly small.
Heart of a DogIn any case, I'd think any non-fundamentalists would be in the "sorta the truth" category by definition (if they're the ones not taking it all literally). |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 22, 2018 2:35:24 GMT
Just to jump in here for a bit, I think gadreel /@zackbop and @graham / general313 / cupcakes are talking past each other a bit. There's a difference between the perspectives of Biblical scholars (many of which are atheists and are essentially just historians and/or Lit majors focusing on The Bible) who are primarily interested in the minutiae of historical context/facts or the nuances of the original language and the various denominations and what they preach/focus on. The latter isn't necessarily--perhaps even rarely--informed by the former to any serious degree, but is formed more out of their own feelings about Biblical matters, and they're more likely to get factual matters dead wrong (Biblical literalism, eg). It's like the difference between film scholars VS critics VS viewers. Viewers and critics are typically more concerned with qualitative judgments while scholars are more concerned with context, history, technique, etc. I don't know if scholars can say for certain what parts of The Bible were meant literally VS metaphorically, but they're more informed about when it was written, by whom, for what purpose, and to make comparisons with similar works of the time in order to make highly educated guesses as to what's going on. I doubt many scholars think Genesis was meant literally. Fair observation, certainly that is the case in the majority of the history of the church, I like to think the religion did not start out that way, and that we are moving back towards a better understanding by the masses. I still find it hard to think that people ever treated all the books of the bible in the same way, but I suppose most people (even church goers) have a limited exposure to the bible, reading only genesis and the gospels for example. Having said that this conversation is really more inclined to actual thought as opposed to what the masses have accepted, at least that is my interpretation. I can certainly see how it gets treated as one book. For one thing, most people are lazy; it's easier to just take it as one book than to try to consider each book separately in its historical context and genre. With the laziness also comes ignorance; we've all seen those studies that show how poorly most Christians know The Bible to start with. Too many just feel that basic need to believe in something, and since Christianity is the dominant religion here, it's the easiest choice; and just having the basic belief (God is real, Jesus is real, what both taught is moral and it's all in The Bible) is enough for many, even if they don't bother to actually read the whole book or do any real study of it. When it comes to various denominations, I think most started out trying to make some coherent sense out of such a diverse collection, so they inevitably developed different ways of interpreting it; and of course the early Church played a big part in deciding what books got included/excluded. It's a messy and complex history; no wonder most try to simplify it for themselves since most don't have the patience (or time) of scholars. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 3:17:14 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 5:20:09 GMT
A lot of what is scripture is taken too literally. But it's usually what is taken literally that isn't literal. Take the quote "God hates a liar". Now, literally, this is not something the Holy Ghost does. The Holy Ghost didn't hate the German farmer who hid a Jew in a haystack, who lied to the Gestapo, saying, "No, no stinking Jews here! They better not come around here!", in hopes of keeping the Gestapo from doing evil. Just one example. More to today. A man is dying from a fiery crash in which he lost his wife and baby. He asks you if they survived. You know they didn't, but you know he is about to die. You tell the man he managed to save his family. He dies with some hope and satisfaction. Are you the "liar God hates"? You are definitely not the liar to the Holy Ghost. Why? The Holy Ghost is the comforter, the truth. The fool will say "But the truth is the evil that was reality" But that makes the fool the fool. The truth of the Holy Ghost is not in this world's reality. It is a superior world. The man who writes defeat into your heart is the liar to the Holy Ghost, not the man who writes hope into the hearts of those who aren't in power. Those in power need no more heart. Those who are already principalities need no more hope. Those who are downtrodden, they need the victory. The Holy Ghost is not of this world. When he hates a liar, he hates the liar of the world who keeps the world in hate, and who rationalizes the defeat of others. The "liar" to the Holy Ghost, is the man or woman who says that the victim is the problem, the victim is to blame, that the thieves and murderers and gang members are victims, that their prey are at fault, because they were not loved by God or Jesus. That is the Holy Ghost of the honest man and the honest woman, the ones whose spirits will go into that sphere when they depart from this life, for they have accepted the value of that true Holy Ghost. The Ghost that is worshiped by those who love the world's truth is what they move their spirits to. A person who lies once in a while is not a liar, just as a person who gets drunk once in a while is not a drunkard. That is the very simple and whole truth answer to your riddle because the God of the Bible does indeed hate a liar. He hates quite a few things. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 11:18:53 GMT
tpfkar Bull chutney. The Bible has always mostly been presented as "The Word" by the vast majority of the faithful, for the most part inviolate, and both the glaring contradictions and gross immoralities chanted away with howls of "context".
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.I don't agree at all, I challenge you to find me someone that interprets psalms, genesis and matthew in the same way. I don't know what "interprets the same way" is supposed to mean. Most faithful peeps believe it is all God's Word™ and thus absolutely true and as a whole it's coherent and that it doesn't contradict itself. And anybody who says otherwise just ain't squinting right. Certainly not just "fundamentalists" that hold, nor "militant atheists" that note this widespread standard line of the faithful. All this is before even broaching the gross immorality of large swathes of it.
For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God.
No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;
no man with a crippled foot or hand,
or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.
No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.
He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food;
yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 11:22:17 GMT
tpfkar I'm pretty certain that your chance of getting "not coherent" and "sorta the truth" either from clerics or the wider flock is vanishingly small.
Heart of a DogIn any case, I'd think any non-fundamentalists would be in the "sorta the truth" category by definition (if they're the ones not taking it all literally). That doesn't really up the chances, esp. over history, and non-literal is decidedly not "sorta the truth" for the faithful.
Superpowerless |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 22, 2018 11:32:44 GMT
tpfkar Depends on the Clerics and flockIn any case, I'd think any non-fundamentalists would be in the "sorta the truth" category by definition (if they're the ones not taking it all literally). That doesn't really up the chances, esp. over history, and non-literal is decidedly not "sorta the truth" for the faithful.
SuperpowerlessYeah, but it's not like we have easy access to historic polling data on the matter. If non-literal wouldn't be "sorta the truth" for the faithful, then I just don't know what meaning of "truth" they'd be using. If a story isn't literal, it's fiction; if it's fiction it's not true. Seems like inescapable logic to me. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 11:50:26 GMT
tpfkar Yeah, but it's not like we have easy access to historic polling data on the matter. If non-literal wouldn't be "sorta the truth" for the faithful, then I just don't know what meaning of "truth" they'd be using. If a story isn't literal, it's fiction; if it's fiction it's not true. Seems like inescapable logic to me. I don't need such access to know that the vast majority of the faithful have treated it as both coherent and inviolate. And I don't know what you don't know, and can't say what's inescapable to you, but I do know that the faithful generally think that they're worshiping the truth, whether it is communicated literally or allegorically.
No Wow |
|
