The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

[joecct]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

- St. Augustine

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

That's a different kettle of fish than this Eternal September idea Kepler brought in where you say the other side is just wrong and can't be reasoned with. There can be recognition that the other side has legitimate perspectives and arguments despite not agreeing with them. Yah, I know, we see that kind of recognition all too rarely.

Not sure why you ask what you ask.

And I'm not sure why you don't understand what it is I asked. It seemed pretty straight forward to me.

Both sides think they hit the Eternal September problem. Pretty obvious. Of course you're really really the one that's right, as we hear from you constantly.

In a genuine religious discussion, who asserts that they're really, really the one that's wrong?

In discussions such as this one, people only assert those beliefs that they hold as true, AKA "right." When you complain that another poster asserts his belief structure to be right and yours to be wrong, it's like complaining that the White House is white: it comes off as whining for the sake of whining, really.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

So what about Atheism and the related general mindset on display here?

Atheism wants to take the place of a foundational source of morality. But it can't. It doesn't stand for anything. Atheism's one shot is to be against what Jesus espoused. Be against Turn the other cheek. Be against the Meek shall inherit the earth. Be against the Golden rule. But it doesn't do that...I don't think it wants to as over the centuries Christianity has built those to be goals of societal 'good'.

So, beyond morality Atheism doesn't mean anything of itself. In the vacuum, adherents try to plug in something so they plug in science. 'Yes, science will differentiate us'. Was Jesus opposed to science? He had his message...and he saw no need to dilute it. In fact, he was a big believer of using any tool (i.e., science) one could to make the world a better place. So Christianity is not an 'either/or' with science its an 'and' science. That is evident in the long list of influential Christian inventors and scientists. And without science or anything else for that matter, Atheism is just 'no' and provides no value in itself whatsoever.

So you're sticking by your assertion that the person holding the title of "Vicar of Christ" among others isn't a true Christian when doing bad acts (but is when he does true Christian acts). Got it.

I'm saying 'NTS doesn't work when the label of an object isn't accurate'. That's the source of your criticism. If you want to make a case where I'm wrong on the value of Christianity to modern day society, then do it.

 

[LynahFan]

Atheism in this particular discussion is just like that image of the GOP, and you followers are like their adherents. You're just critical and just as ideological news outlets, you have nothing else to fall back on. The big problem is a total lack of facts to offer any alternative and therefore, you are strictly limited in your criticism of everything. The outcome is that you'll never have anything to propose...no solution. Is it just this discussion where atheism is just 'no' or perhaps all atheism is...is just an

Here are some facts I am happy to introduce to the discussion:

1) The US was founded as a secular nation (i.e. without a state religion), where the government is not allowed to pass laws forcing people to practice any particular religion, nor any religion at all.
2) Over time, this principle has evolved to be understood that the government may also not show favoritism to one religion over another.
3) Despite 1 and 2 above, Christians, who are a majority in most cities and all states in the country, continually use the force of law to enforce on everyone the behaviors that they believe to be part of their religion, including anti-miscegenation laws, prohibition, anti-sodomy laws, anti-gay marriage laws, hanging of The 10 Commandments in public places, etc.
4) Unless there's a truly compelling state interest, that junk is illegal and needs to stop. If Christianity really has truth behind it, it ought to have no trouble at all competing in a free marketplace of religious thought against all those "pretender" religions without having to resort to using the power of the state to tilt the playing field. I mean, really - "In this corner, we have an actual religion founded by an omnipotent, omniscient being....and in the other corner, a bunch of human-created fairy tales." Shouldn't be much of a fight, and yet Christians still feel the need to cheat? Why are they so afraid of a level playing field?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Here are some facts I am happy to introduce to the discussion:

1) The US was founded as a secular nation (i.e. without a state religion), where the government is not allowed to pass laws forcing people to practice any particular religion, nor any religion at all.
2) Over time, this principle has evolved to be understood that the government may also not show favoritism to one religion over another.

Yes and it is the way it should be.

3) Despite 1 and 2 above, Christians, who are a majority in most cities and all states in the country, continually use the force of law to enforce on everyone the behaviors that they believe to be part of their religion, including anti-miscegenation laws, prohibition, anti-sodomy laws, anti-gay marriage laws, hanging of The 10 Commandments in public places, etc

First of all, if any significant majority thinks that in general society should look a certain way...then it should start to look that way. Its why we have representative government. Should it look the way a small minority wants it to look?

But while self proclaimed 'Christians' based on surveys may be a majority...Christian perspectives (by your definition or mine) are definitely not. The number of relevant laws introduced are a tiny percentage of the whole. So Christian perspective is of minor influence...and due to exploding Islamic and far eastern immigration, the trend is actually probably against Christian influence.

4) Unless there's a truly compelling state interest, that junk is illegal and needs to stop. If Christianity really has truth behind it, it ought to have no trouble at all competing in a free marketplace of religious thought against all those "pretender" religions without having to resort to using the power of the state to tilt the playing field. I mean, really - "In this corner, we have an actual religion founded by an omnipotent, omniscient being....and in the other corner, a bunch of human-created fairy tales." Shouldn't be much of a fight, and yet Christians still feel the need to cheat? Why are they so afraid of a level playing field?

Things are close to the way they should be. Everyone lobbies for their outcome...Christians do, Muslims do, corporations do, military industrial lobbies do, I spose Atheists as a party of 'no' do also. Just as with a defense attorney in a court case...every idea needs to be fought for to determine whether its right or not. You can't blame any of these parties as that's the way it works. The key is that the Constitution rules the day and the courts determine what's legal. The US system has a lot of ideas jockeying for position...but in the end the US has the world's best legal system and that determines the outcomes.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Logic is a binary condition. Either something is logical or it's not.

Um, no. That only applies to certain forms of logic, there are other forms of logic that allow more than a binary choice.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

4) Unless there's a truly compelling state interest, that junk is illegal and needs to stop. If Christianity really has truth behind it, it ought to have no trouble at all competing in a free marketplace of religious thought against all those "pretender" religions without having to resort to using the power of the state to tilt the playing field. I mean, really - "In this corner, we have an actual religion founded by an omnipotent, omniscient being....and in the other corner, a bunch of human-created fairy tales." Shouldn't be much of a fight, and yet Christians still feel the need to cheat? Why are they so afraid of a level playing field?

I am personally of the opinion that religion and religious issues need to be ignored by "the state" and in all public transactions in general. Whatever people want to believe regarding the bible, etc..., fine. But the rest of us are free to ignore those beliefs and opinions.

Here is what I think the average person, who consider themselves a Christian "under attack" struggles to deal with, the way we operate now. Say you own a bakery. You have some employees. One of your employees demands the right to wear a burqa while working, even though you've heard it scares customers. As the employer, you're probably going to have to permit the religious garb, or risk a lawsuit.

But then that same baker says I don't want to bake cakes for weddings involving gay or lesbian couples, due to my religious beliefs. Society says you are discriminating against gays and lesbians for taking that position.

The average "Christian" Joe on the street is going to look at that and be unhappy. That is why, in my opinion religion needs to be ignored. Your religion tells you to wear a burqa. Fine, wear it at home. Wear it in your car. Here at the bakery we wear baker's garb. You don't like selling to gays and lesbians because of your religion? Tough bounce. Don't invite them into your home, but if you're engaged in a public accommodation, you don't get to discriminate like that.

As a country we didn't get off track when it was decided the Republic would not establish a religion, or restrict the free exercise of any particular religion. Where we went off track was when we decided we, as members of the public, were forbidden from discriminating against people because of those choices. I get to discriminate against people who "believe" "skinny jeans" look good, or jorts can be worn in public. A avoid those people like the plague. Seriously, why can't I discriminate against people who "believe" in Mormonism? That's a religion that was formed after Old Pio was born, and only to cover up the philandering of its founder. The idea that I can't, in my business, ignore that silliness is where we've gone seriously wrong.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

And I'm not sure why you don't understand what it is I asked. It seemed pretty straight forward to me.

In discussions such as this one, people only assert those beliefs that they hold as true, AKA "right." When you complain that another poster asserts his belief structure to be right and yours to be wrong, it's like complaining that the White House is white: it comes off as whining for the sake of whining, really.

Whoosh! Don't know what else to say.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I know you think that's true, but it's not. Fundies are whack jobs -- they've completely missed the point and think the map is the territory. Until they crawl back under their rock I'll belittle them -- they're dangerous to a free society.

I have no issue with any other group of believers. Most people invent frames to hang meaning on because meaning has no ground in the universe -- the universe does not give a crap about the human invention of "purpose." The more frames the merrier; just don't delude yourself into thinking your frame is anything more than a game with a made-up rule book.

Your two paragraphs are in direct conflict, like many things you say. Fundies are a group of believers, and there are many different flavors of them, with some being much more fundie than others, but as usual your broad brush has no distinction. Almost any believer is fundamental about at least a thing or two or else it's hard to see what they really have much belief in. Views like yours are dangerous.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

So what about Atheism and the related general mindset on display here?

Atheism wants to take the place of a foundational source of morality. But it can't. It doesn't stand for anything. Atheism's one shot is to be against what Jesus espoused. Be against Turn the other cheek. Be against the Meek shall inherit the earth. Be against the Golden rule. But it doesn't do that...I don't think it wants to as over the centuries Christianity has built those to be goals of societal 'good'.

You're creating a false dichotomy. Atheism doesn't set itself against anything because Atheism isn't a belief system, it's quite the opposite. Atheists as a group don't set themselves against turning the other cheek, or following the golden rule, those are values society would do well to practice regardless of whether or not they're tied to one religion or another; they make for a peaceful existence. Atheists just hold that there is no god - you've discounted the belief in countless "false gods" created by various cultures over the years, we're just discounting one more. Individual mores are dictated by the individual person, more presicely, they would be influenced by that person's parents and not some false god.

So, beyond morality Atheism doesn't mean anything of itself. In the vacuum, adherents try to plug in something so they plug in science. 'Yes, science will differentiate us'. Was Jesus opposed to science? He had his message...and he saw no need to dilute it. In fact, he was a big believer of using any tool (i.e., science) one could to make the world a better place. So Christianity is not an 'either/or' with science its an 'and' science. That is evident in the long list of influential Christian inventors and scientists. And without science or anything else for that matter, Atheism is just 'no' and provides no value in itself whatsoever.

Perhaps, as you put it, Jesus isn't against science, yet so many of his followers are and have been. Just ask those who were imprisoned for espousing scientific facts that the Church has viewed as heretical, against His word as provided in the Book. How much further along would society be scientifically if your religion wasn't holding us back from moving our scientific progress?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Your two paragraphs are in direct conflict, like many things you say. Fundies are a group of believers, and there are many different flavors of them, with some being much more fundie than others, but as usual your broad brush has no distinction. Almost any believer is fundamental about at least a thing or two or else it's hard to see what they really have much belief in. Views like yours are dangerous.

The sixth word in the second paragraph refutes your argument. Although it occurs to me in retrospect that I am assuming a loose definition of "fundy" as those who take scripture as literal fact, rather than as parable. If that seems inexact to you, feel free to substitute the term "literalist" for "fundy." As for the Field Guide to Literalists Varities, yes, I am sure there are a virtual infinitude of arguments about which side of the bread to butter and how much and how far from it women have to stand for it to be holy, but the argument here is reductive to the criterion: "is your scripture wholly literal?" That is a binary result, and I'm drawing the Line of Derision at that point. Others would no doubt draw the Line of Authenticity, and argue that those on the other side of the line are "cafeteria believers."

The inherent danger of scriptural literalism to a free society is obvious: what happens when the Magic Book conflicts with either/or demonstrable fact and other people's rights. That is happening right now with US, the former with evolution, the latter with gay rights. If it's hard to see the beam in one's own eye, think of the conflict between Islamic literalism and a free society.

 

[unofan]

Um, no. That only applies to certain forms of logic, there are other forms of logic that allow more than a binary choice.

Read it again, Einstein. I didn't say logic was limited to binary arguments, I said logic itself is a binary condition. There's no "sorta logical," that's just a wishy washy way of saying it's not.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

You're creating a false dichotomy. Atheism doesn't set itself against anything because Atheism isn't a belief system, it's quite the opposite. Atheists as a group don't set themselves against turning the other cheek, or following the golden rule, those are values society would do well to practice regardless of whether or not they're tied to one religion or another; they make for a peaceful existence. Atheists just hold that there is no god - you've discounted the belief in countless "false gods" created by various cultures over the years, we're just discounting one more. Individual mores are dictated by the individual person, more presicely, they would be influenced by that person's parents and not some false god.

I jumped over the step that Atheists don't believe in God. It makes sense that individuals believe what they do.

I was trying to find a purpose for or value to society of broader Atheism. Outside of an individual's belief that God does not it exist, a Atheist movement offers no real morality of its own, no purpose, no motivations, no differentiator. As a broader movement, I see nothing but 'no' there.

Anything else will have to wait for now...

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

BTW, I highly recommend Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt: A History. Some believers, at least, from what has been said here, are operating from false axioms about what atheism is and how it operates. Much as how Bob has pointed out there are a huge variety of fundamentalisms, there are also a huge variety of atheisms, but as with the former so the latter does have some critical characteristics that make it a member of the general class. The criticisms being leveled against atheism in this thread address exactly none of these, and go off on tangents that have nothing to do with what the whole doubt project has been about for the last 5000+ years.

It's also a really well written book.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I jumped over the step that Atheists don't believe in God. It makes sense that individuals believe what they do.

I was trying to find a purpose for or value to society of broader Atheism. Outside of an individual's belief that God does not it exist, a Atheist movement offers no real morality of its own, no purpose, no motivations, no differentiator. As a broader movement, I see nothing but 'no' there.

What is the morality, purpose, motivation, or differentator of the US Constitution, then? It's a framework for governance that is not based on Chistianity, or any religion. And yet, you appear to ascribe value to the Constitution, so you clearly agree that non-religious (i.e. atheistic) points of view can be valuable. Our founding fathers said, "You know what, we don't need God to be involved in our government. Let's set kick Him out of the room and get this done." That is a group of people acting like atheists, no matter what their actual personal beliefs may have been, and they created a hugely valuable, and I would certainly argue "moral," result. Atheistic actions - and associated atheistic movements - have given the US its strong tradition of religious tolerance that is virtually unique in the world.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I jumped over the step that Atheists don't believe in God. It makes sense that individuals believe what they do.

I was trying to find a purpose for or value to society of broader Atheism. Outside of an individual's belief that God does not it exist, a Atheist movement offers no real morality of its own, no purpose, no motivations, no differentiator. As a broader movement, I see nothing but 'no' there.

Anything else will have to wait for now...

Atheism is a LACK of belief, not a belief. You simply can't get past the hurtle that not everyone operates with belief blinders like you do and it taints everything you say with your ignorance. Too bad trying to explain how atheism is not nihilism would be lost on you.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Atheism is a LACK of belief, not a belief. You simply can't get past the hurtle that not everyone operates with belief blinders like you do and it taints everything you say with your ignorance. Too bad trying to explain how atheism is not nihilism would be lost on you.

LOL...hardcore funny post, with the irony of a word oopsy added in. You sure did not forget to take your uber-serious pill today, that for sure.

 

[burd]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I am personally of the opinion that religion and religious issues need to be ignored by "the state" and in all public transactions in general. Whatever people want to believe regarding the bible, etc..., fine. But the rest of us are free to ignore those beliefs and opinions.

Here is what I think the average person, who consider themselves a Christian "under attack" struggles to deal with, the way we operate now. Say you own a bakery. You have some employees. One of your employees demands the right to wear a burqa while working, even though you've heard it scares customers. As the employer, you're probably going to have to permit the religious garb, or risk a lawsuit.

But then that same baker says I don't want to bake cakes for weddings involving gay or lesbian couples, due to my religious beliefs. Society says you are discriminating against gays and lesbians for taking that position.

The average "Christian" Joe on the street is going to look at that and be unhappy. That is why, in my opinion religion needs to be ignored. Your religion tells you to wear a burqa. Fine, wear it at home. Wear it in your car. Here at the bakery we wear baker's garb. You don't like selling to gays and lesbians because of your religion? Tough bounce. Don't invite them into your home, but if you're engaged in a public accommodation, you don't get to discriminate like that.

As a country we didn't get off track when it was decided the Republic would not establish a religion, or restrict the free exercise of any particular religion. Where we went off track was when we decided we, as members of the public, were forbidden from discriminating against people because of those choices. I get to discriminate against people who "believe" "skinny jeans" look good, or jorts can be worn in public. A avoid those people like the plague. Seriously, why can't I discriminate against people who "believe" in Mormonism? That's a religion that was formed after Old Pio was born, and only to cover up the philandering of its founder. The idea that I can't, in my business, ignore that silliness is where we've gone seriously wrong.

That is a thoughtful post, Hovey, and unofan will probably have a good response. But the 14th and 5th Amendments prohibit discrimination through state action. What constitutes "state action" is not always as simple as it sounds, but there are tests. Statutes, federal and state, which are empowered by the 14th and 5th, bar discrimination by non-state actors. 28 U.S.C. sec. 1983 is an example.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Does this make Glenn Beck a Mormon? http://beforeitsnews.com/religion/2015/07/glenn-beck-u-s-identified-in-bible-2493706.html

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Does this make Glenn Beck a Mormon? http://beforeitsnews.com/religion/2015/07/glenn-beck-u-s-identified-in-bible-2493706.html

I think Glenn Beck being born, raised and then being reconfirmed as a Mormon after drunkenly straying from that sect's path makes him a Mormon, not this single belief.