True Christians, Tell Me Your Story!

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

FreeThinkerNZ,

 

"Sounds like a fictional work, doesn't it?  It's a shame so many people started taking it literally and calling it an instruction manual for life."

 

I agree, there are sections of the Bible that seem to standout as being fictional in nature. Just taking the passage of the Garden of Eden as a primary example, I'll admit that I have never been able to take the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis in a literal fashion. Even when I first became a Christian nearly 30 years ago, I didn't accept Adam and Eve as historically literal people (and we all know how a non-literal interpretation of Adam impinges upon a Christian attempt to own a fully functional, streamlined, and shiny Christian theology).

[...]

 

So, while I don't prefer to use the somewhat cliche description of the Bible as "THE manual for living," I would at least cite its positive social influences in my own life, despite some of the apparent fictions therein.

 

Peace

 

Hi Philo,

 

Your view above is the approach the the bible I had for several years, before I left the faith. This was my last stand, so to speak, before I realized I was just playing a game with myself. I realized a few things:

 

1. If I could take a smorgasbord approach to the bible, and my neighbors could do the same, and each one of us could just pick the parts that seemed good and discard the rest, how is this more than just subjective spiritual self-pleasure?

 

2. When I stripped the bible from all of its absurd and wicked parts, what was left was nothing more than you could get from the general teaching of religion, or frankly, of any self-help seminar.

 

3. Boiling the absurd and unbelievable parts off in the hopes of leaving the true core of bible teaching has a way of leaving even the core in doubt. If the bible writers lied or were fooled about Jesus walking on the water, what makes me think they didn't lie or were fooled about the Resurrection? That kind of thing. Just because we can get something like a biblical consensus of teaching by eliminating certain parts doesn't necessarily mean that consensus is factual.

 

Shoot, I wanted to say more but I'm going to be late for work if I don't get out of here. I really appreciate the good will and desire to communicate you are bringing here, Philo.

[♦ ficino ♦]

The Transcendental Argument....

 

[snip]

 

If you have source, document, paper that you'd like me to look and discuss, I'd be more than happy too (assuming it's not more than 30 or 40 pages). Or, if you have some insights on this topic you'd like to run by me, I'm open to reading what  you have to share.

 

Peace

Hi Philovoid, here's a summary of TAG and an attempt to shore up some of the difficulties that critics have pointed to:

 

http://butler-harris.org/tag/

 

If you look at Butler's essay, you'll see it needs editing. I think you, Ravenstar and I could agree on that!

 

At this point, I'm working on other stuff and am not sure that I really want to devote much time to TAG. But if you have insights, I would like to hear them. If you decide the topic isn't worth it, I fully understand!

 

In a nutshell, I'll say that I don't find TAG convincing. Of several reasons, my main one boils down to this. The argument itself doesn't provide reasons why we should accept its major premise, i.e. that we must presuppose the God of Calvinism in order to have logic, morals and inductive reasoning. To the extent that TAG may succeed in questioning assumptions in the thinking of non-Calvinists, it does not show that its own assumptions are sound. I.e. "your theory is inadequate" doesn't automatically generate "my theory is the right one."

 

I have other beefs with TAG but will forebear.

[2PhiloVoid]

 

The Transcendental Argument....

 

[snip]

 

If you have source, document, paper that you'd like me to look and discuss, I'd be more than happy too (assuming it's not more than 30 or 40 pages). Or, if you have some insights on this topic you'd like to run by me, I'm open to reading what  you have to share.

 

Peace

Hi Philovoid, here's a summary of TAG and an attempt to shore up some of the difficulties that critics have pointed to:

 

http://butler-harris.org/tag/

 

If you look at Butler's essay, you'll see it needs editing. I think you, Ravenstar and I could agree on that!

 

At this point, I'm working on other stuff and am not sure that I really want to devote much time to TAG. But if you have insights, I would like to hear them. If you decide the topic isn't worth it, I fully understand!

 

In a nutshell, I'll say that I don't find TAG convincing. Of several reasons, my main one boils down to this. The argument itself doesn't provide reasons why we should accept its major premise, i.e. that we must presuppose the God of Calvinism in order to have logic, morals and inductive reasoning. To the extent that TAG may succeed in questioning assumptions in the thinking of non-Calvinists, it does not show that its own assumptions are sound. I.e. "your theory is inadequate" doesn't automatically generate "my theory is the right one."

 

I have other beefs with TAG but will forebear.

 

 

Thank you, Ficino,

 

I'll take a look at the link you provided and get up to speed on TAG and the aspect of it you are speaking of. I too have my doubts about it as a theory, but I'll have to further assess it. Who knows, maybe there's a 'stark reality' waiting to be uncovered. [Probably not, but I can always get my hopes up... ]

[LimitedEdition]

Welcome, 2PhiloVoid! I'm LimitedEdition, nice to meet you. You seem like a very fun person with your witty humorous stuff I see on the side there, "the usual suspect" lol. Anyway, apparently all the stories of why people became and remain christians are the same, but I don't think so. And it seems like what lead you to christianity is exactly what lead me out, namely using the brain which I find very interesting and I'd love to hear more if you wanna share it of course out in the open or not, I don't want to try and change anybody's mind but really, just having some normal communication on the subject would be refreshing I'm sure you now what I mean lol. 

[2PhiloVoid]

Welcome, 2PhiloVoid! I'm LimitedEdition, nice to meet you. You seem like a very fun person with your witty humorous stuff I see on the side there, "the usual suspect" lol. Anyway, apparently all the stories of why people became and remain christians are the same, but I don't think so. And it seems like what lead you to christianity is exactly what lead me out, namely using the brain which I find very interesting and I'd love to hear more if you wanna share it of course out in the open or not, I don't want to try and change anybody's mind but really, just having some normal communication on the subject would be refreshing I'm sure you now what I mean lol. 

 

Hi LimitedEdition,

 

Nice to meet you too! (Cute Gerbil avatar! Or is it a mouse?)

 

I think your right on target about the possible nature of incorrigible stories among Christian "recidivists." The typical common cause of such stories? Lack of brain convolutions.

 

Sure, I'd love to have a discussion with you, particularly within the context of "normal communication." It sure beats the alternative, doesn't it? And the fact remains that I could stand to in"crease" the contours of my thought life.  So, what's on your mind (along with "Knowledge, learning, truth, geology, psychology, coffee, netflix,")?

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

[♦ ficino ♦]

I'll take a look at the link you provided and get up to speed on TAG and the aspect of it you are speaking of. I too have my doubts about it as a theory, but I'll have to further assess it. Who knows, maybe there's a 'stark reality' waiting to be uncovered. [Probably not, but I can always get my hopes up... ]

My thought at this point is that there seems to be inscrutable, weird shit in the universe, and we do the best we can with our theories, using them as long as they take us further. When they don't, we look for better ones. The judgment of a better theory is its predictive power, not its congruence with a single, overarching statement of principle [esp. not a principle taken from a bronze age book and expansions thereof].

 

[and 'The God of Calvinism did it' is not a principle that really gets any scientific inquiry off the ground]

[LimitedEdition]

 

Welcome, 2PhiloVoid! I'm LimitedEdition, nice to meet you. You seem like a very fun person with your witty humorous stuff I see on the side there, "the usual suspect" lol. Anyway, apparently all the stories of why people became and remain christians are the same, but I don't think so. And it seems like what lead you to christianity is exactly what lead me out, namely using the brain which I find very interesting and I'd love to hear more if you wanna share it of course out in the open or not, I don't want to try and change anybody's mind but really, just having some normal communication on the subject would be refreshing I'm sure you now what I mean lol. 

 

Hi LimitedEdition,

 

Nice to meet you too! (Cute Gerbil avatar! Or is it a mouse?)

 

I think your right on target about the possible nature of incorrigible stories among Christian "recidivists." The typical common cause of such stories? Lack of brain convolutions.

 

Sure, I'd love to have a discussion with you, particularly within the context of "normal communication." It sure beats the alternative, doesn't it? And the fact remains that I could stand to in"crease" the contours of my thought life.  So, what's on your mind (along with "Knowledge, learning, truth, geology, psychology, coffee, netflix,")?

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

 

My picture is a baby bunbun! 

[2PhiloVoid]

 

 

Welcome, 2PhiloVoid! I'm LimitedEdition, nice to meet you. You seem like a very fun person with your witty humorous stuff I see on the side there, "the usual suspect" lol. Anyway, apparently all the stories of why people became and remain christians are the same, but I don't think so. And it seems like what lead you to christianity is exactly what lead me out, namely using the brain which I find very interesting and I'd love to hear more if you wanna share it of course out in the open or not, I don't want to try and change anybody's mind but really, just having some normal communication on the subject would be refreshing I'm sure you now what I mean lol. 

 

Hi LimitedEdition,

 

Nice to meet you too! (Cute Gerbil avatar! Or is it a mouse?)

 

I think your right on target about the possible nature of incorrigible stories among Christian "recidivists." The typical common cause of such stories? Lack of brain convolutions.

 

Sure, I'd love to have a discussion with you, particularly within the context of "normal communication." It sure beats the alternative, doesn't it? And the fact remains that I could stand to in"crease" the contours of my thought life.  So, what's on your mind (along with "Knowledge, learning, truth, geology, psychology, coffee, netflix,")?

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

 

My picture is a baby bunbun! 

 

 

Of course it's a bun bun! {...and that, folks, demonstrates why zoology isn't on my interest list. I don't know the difference between a gerbil and a bunbun.}

[2PhiloVoid]

 

FreeThinkerNZ,

 

"Sounds like a fictional work, doesn't it?  It's a shame so many people started taking it literally and calling it an instruction manual for life."

 

I agree, there are sections of the Bible that seem to standout as being fictional in nature. Just taking the passage of the Garden of Eden as a primary example, I'll admit that I have never been able to take the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis in a literal fashion. Even when I first became a Christian nearly 30 years ago, I didn't accept Adam and Eve as historically literal people (and we all know how a non-literal interpretation of Adam impinges upon a Christian attempt to own a fully functional, streamlined, and shiny Christian theology).

[...]

 

So, while I don't prefer to use the somewhat cliche description of the Bible as "THE manual for living," I would at least cite its positive social influences in my own life, despite some of the apparent fictions therein.

 

Peace

 

Hi Philo,

 

Your view above is the approach the the bible I had for several years, before I left the faith. This was my last stand, so to speak, before I realized I was just playing a game with myself. I realized a few things:

 

1. If I could take a smorgasbord approach to the bible, and my neighbors could do the same, and each one of us could just pick the parts that seemed good and discard the rest, how is this more than just subjective spiritual self-pleasure?

 

2. When I stripped the bible from all of its absurd and wicked parts, what was left was nothing more than you could get from the general teaching of religion, or frankly, of any self-help seminar.

 

3. Boiling the absurd and unbelievable parts off in the hopes of leaving the true core of bible teaching has a way of leaving even the core in doubt. If the bible writers lied or were fooled about Jesus walking on the water, what makes me think they didn't lie or were fooled about the Resurrection? That kind of thing. Just because we can get something like a biblical consensus of teaching by eliminating certain parts doesn't necessarily mean that consensus is factual.

 

Shoot, I wanted to say more but I'm going to be late for work if I don't get out of here. I really appreciate the good will and desire to communicate you are bringing here, Philo.

 

 

Hiya St.Jeff,

 

I know you were off to work the other day, and you said that you wanted to say more. You're on a roll, man! And I've been shaking your ideas around in my head for a day or two. So, if you have something to add, go ahead, "Make my day!!"   [if not, let me know if you want me to respond.]

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

[LimitedEdition]

 

 

 

Welcome, 2PhiloVoid! I'm LimitedEdition, nice to meet you. You seem like a very fun person with your witty humorous stuff I see on the side there, "the usual suspect" lol. Anyway, apparently all the stories of why people became and remain christians are the same, but I don't think so. And it seems like what lead you to christianity is exactly what lead me out, namely using the brain which I find very interesting and I'd love to hear more if you wanna share it of course out in the open or not, I don't want to try and change anybody's mind but really, just having some normal communication on the subject would be refreshing I'm sure you now what I mean lol. 

 

Hi LimitedEdition,

 

Nice to meet you too! (Cute Gerbil avatar! Or is it a mouse?)

 

I think your right on target about the possible nature of incorrigible stories among Christian "recidivists." The typical common cause of such stories? Lack of brain convolutions.

 

Sure, I'd love to have a discussion with you, particularly within the context of "normal communication." It sure beats the alternative, doesn't it? And the fact remains that I could stand to in"crease" the contours of my thought life.  So, what's on your mind (along with "Knowledge, learning, truth, geology, psychology, coffee, netflix,")?

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

 

My picture is a baby bunbun! 

 

 

Of course it's a bun bun! {...and that, folks, demonstrates why zoology isn't on my interest list. I don't know the difference between a gerbil and a bunbun.}

 

 

   

A gerbil is like a hamster with a long tail and a bunbun is a bunny. 

I wasn't laughing at your lack of knowledge, I actually had to google it. You're hilarious! 

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

Hiya St.Jeff,

 

I know you were off to work the other day, and you said that you wanted to say more. You're on a roll, man! And I've been shaking your ideas around in my head for a day or two. So, if you have something to add, go ahead, "Make my day!!"   [if not, let me know if you want me to respond.]

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

 

Hi Philo,

 

I just wanted to add that no one is born Christian. The dogmas of Christianity aren't something one can deduce from experience or nature. They come from the bible, or rather from speculation on what the bible might mean. It seems, to me, highly suspect to order one's life upon a book that, as you admit, is full of errors, myths, and pure nonsense.

 

I'm pretty sure how this is going to shake out, having been through this before. Either you are secretly a leather-slapping fundy and will simply try to swamp the discussion with bible verses that "prove" the bible is The Infallible Word of God His Own Self (unlikely, from your past postings!); or you will deflect my objections about the bible with the standard liberal Christian response that it doesn't really matter, we can still be confident that there is some core diamond of Truth in the bible that somehow shines through the huge pile of dog dung, and all it takes is to listen to your heart to figure out which is which.

 

This has been my experience, and explains in some measure why I lost confidence in the bible and ended up here on ex-Christian! Well, once again I'm running late.You are welcome to respond or not, as you wish--maybe you could share your own approach to the bible that gives you some confidence of its reliability?

[mymistake]

To be fair the bunbun pic in LE's avatar is so young it's hard to tell if it's a newborn bunny.  The ears are so small.  And it could easily have a tail flipped to the other side.  My guess was bunny but there are so many different species of long eared mice that I couldn't be sure.

[2PhiloVoid]

 

 

 

 

Welcome, 2PhiloVoid! I'm LimitedEdition, nice to meet you. You seem like a very fun person with your witty humorous stuff I see on the side there, "the usual suspect" lol. Anyway, apparently all the stories of why people became and remain christians are the same, but I don't think so. And it seems like what lead you to christianity is exactly what lead me out, namely using the brain which I find very interesting and I'd love to hear more if you wanna share it of course out in the open or not, I don't want to try and change anybody's mind but really, just having some normal communication on the subject would be refreshing I'm sure you now what I mean lol. 

 

Hi LimitedEdition,

 

Nice to meet you too! (Cute Gerbil avatar! Or is it a mouse?)

 

I think your right on target about the possible nature of incorrigible stories among Christian "recidivists." The typical common cause of such stories? Lack of brain convolutions.

 

Sure, I'd love to have a discussion with you, particularly within the context of "normal communication." It sure beats the alternative, doesn't it? And the fact remains that I could stand to in"crease" the contours of my thought life.  So, what's on your mind (along with "Knowledge, learning, truth, geology, psychology, coffee, netflix,")?

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

 

My picture is a baby bunbun! 

 

 

Of course it's a bun bun! {...and that, folks, demonstrates why zoology isn't on my interest list. I don't know the difference between a gerbil and a bunbun.}

 

 

   

A gerbil is like a hamster with a long tail and a bunbun is a bunny. 

I wasn't laughing at your lack of knowledge, I actually had to google it. You're hilarious! 

 

Thank you for the extra effort to clarify this for me. The the bunny is definitely adorable. Peace

[Guest Furball]

it evolved from a cotton ball -j/k 

[2PhiloVoid]

 

 

 

FreeThinkerNZ,

 

"Sounds like a fictional work, doesn't it?  It's a shame so many people started taking it literally and calling it an instruction manual for life."

 

I agree, there are sections of the Bible that seem to standout as being fictional in nature. Just taking the passage of the Garden of Eden as a primary example, I'll admit that I have never been able to take the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis in a literal fashion. Even when I first became a Christian nearly 30 years ago, I didn't accept Adam and Eve as historically literal people (and we all know how a non-literal interpretation of Adam impinges upon a Christian attempt to own a fully functional, streamlined, and shiny Christian theology).

[...]

 

So, while I don't prefer to use the somewhat cliche description of the Bible as "THE manual for living," I would at least cite its positive social influences in my own life, despite some of the apparent fictions therein.

 

Peace

Hi Philo,

 

Your view above is the approach the the bible I had for several years, before I left the faith. This was my last stand, so to speak, before I realized I was just playing a game with myself. I realized a few things:

 

1. If I could take a smorgasbord approach to the bible, and my neighbors could do the same, and each one of us could just pick the parts that seemed good and discard the rest, how is this more than just subjective spiritual self-pleasure?

 

2. When I stripped the bible from all of its absurd and wicked parts, what was left was nothing more than you could get from the general teaching of religion, or frankly, of any self-help seminar.

 

3. Boiling the absurd and unbelievable parts off in the hopes of leaving the true core of bible teaching has a way of leaving even the core in doubt. If the bible writers lied or were fooled about Jesus walking on the water, what makes me think they didn't lie or were fooled about the Resurrection? That kind of thing. Just because we can get something like a biblical consensus of teaching by eliminating certain parts doesn't necessarily mean that consensus is factual.

 

Shoot, I wanted to say more but I'm going to be late for work if I don't get out of here. I really appreciate the good will and desire to communicate you are bringing here, Philo.

 

 

 

Hello StJeff,

 

Great comments, Jeff! And the candor in your explanations provides me a challenge. I noticed you made several substantive ideas/critiques in your last two posts, so for now I’m only going to respond to the first two critiques and try to take things in what I consider to be bite-size pieces……

 

**Your view above is the approach to the bible I had for several years, before I left the faith. This was my last stand, so to speak, before I realized I was just playing a game with myself. I realized a few things:

 

I sympathize, Jeff. I think many if not all of us have had times where we get sucked into a miasma of ‘existential’ funk and find ourselves left with disjointed emotions, bouncing up and down as we mull over the eaten years we’ve given to Bible. In reflecting on this, I remembered days and weeks (or was it months?) when I stared up at the ceiling or gazed out through the window, feeling the seeming absurdity of it all as it soaked into my frontal lobe. Futile were my attempts to correlate in any way the contents of the Bible with the world/universe as we ‘now’ know it. I often still feel the tension of just me being blanketed by ‘the Cosmos.’ Even now I have occasional moments where I sit and brood; I wish religion were a more tangible set phenomena, but it doesn’t seem to be.

 

You said that you arrived at a point when you realized you were “just playing a game” with the bible. Perhaps, it is a kind of game, and it’s one we play with ourselves most of all. Sometimes we play it with our families and communities, sometimes with the celestial panorama just outside our walls. Sure, could be a game, but the thing is, if it is a game, we may want to consider what kind of game we think we’ve been played (ala Wittgenstein, for instance.) Are we in fact playing a science game, or one of history, language, culture, or philosophy?  All of these; none of these? As for myself, I think the game is primarily made up of the latter four options above. It could hardly be one of physical science. As we know, many Christians try to make their religion a ‘science game,’ and when they do, it’s one they often quickly lose…

 

**1. If I could take a smorgasbord approach to the bible, and my neighbors could do the same, and each one of us could just pick the parts that seemed good and discard the rest, how is this more than just subjective spiritual self-pleasure?

 

Interesting metaphor, this Smorgasbord Approach. It sounds deliciously tempting, which is perhaps why so many Christian people fall for it, especially when they can just plop a load of leather-bound pages onto their tables, randomly access those sacred tomes with a blind eye and a fidgety finger, and suck up the steamy, saucy promises. How about some Minced Moses, along with some Fresh Solomon and Habbakkuk, and add to that a large helping of Revelation splattered on a hellishly hot plate and seasoned with some Ecclesiastes for spice and texture? MMM….MMM!! 

 

Sure, picking and choosing ‘nice bits’ from a book, which are displayed as a Smorgasbord, could contribute to some form(s) of psychological self-stimulation, but how do we discern between those people who are in fact just mentally pleasuring themselves via the bible from those people who seem to “pick and choose” while at the same time exhibiting exegetical skill and scholarship, and who appear to select and prioritize various ideas, laws, or other sundry items based on  succinct principles or methods rather than on a litany of intuitions. Don’t we need to make a distinction between these two varieties (or more) of biblical interpretation, or the lack thereof?

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid 

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

Thanks for your lively response!

 

 

You said that you arrived at a point when you realized you were “just playing a game” with the bible. Perhaps, it is a kind of game, and it’s one we play with ourselves most of all. Sometimes we play it with our families and communities, sometimes with the celestial panorama just outside our walls. Sure, could be a game, but the thing is, if it is a game, we may want to consider what kind of game we think we’ve been played (ala Wittgenstein, for instance.) Are we in fact playing a science game, or one of history, language, culture, or philosophy?  All of these; none of these? As for myself, I think the game is primarily made up of the latter four options above. It could hardly be one of physical science. As we know, many Christians try to make their religion a ‘science game,’ and when they do, it’s one they often quickly lose…

 

 

Pardon me, I’m a little lost on this first point—I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at here.  I’m not the smartest man in the world, so I constantly need clarification—I hope you don’t mind. Of the five games you mention: science, history, language, culture, and philosophy, you say you tend to think the game is made up primarily of the latter four. By this, are you saying that religion speaks to the last four, but is not intended to speak to science—and therefore any scientific errors in the bible can be dismissed since they are not part of the game we play as  religious beings anyway?

 

Of course you know that the bible is also unreliable in the other areas. Inaccuracies abound in history (the wildly differing accounts in Acts and Galatians of Paul’s apostolic itinerary), language (Tower of Babel), culture (this can mean so many different things—I think most of the bible’s inaccuracies in this can be addressed as historical errors), and philosophy (the anti-intellectualism of the bible is well documented).

 

I could be misunderstanding you entirely. If so, I’m sorry.

 

Interesting metaphor, this Smorgasbord Approach. [...]

 

Sure, picking and choosing ‘nice bits’ from a book, which are displayed as a Smorgasbord, could contribute to some form(s) of psychological self-stimulation, but how do we discern between those people who are in fact just mentally pleasuring themselves via the bible from those people who seem to “pick and choose” while at the same time exhibiting exegetical skill and scholarship, and who appear to select and prioritize various ideas, laws, or other sundry items based on  succinct principles or methods rather than on a litany of intuitions. Don’t we need to make a distinction between these two varieties (or more) of biblical interpretation, or the lack thereof?

 

 

As for smorgasbord Christianity—every Christian does it. All of them. In fact, even the textual record of the biblical manuscripts show that various scribes actually added to/subtracted from the texts if they didn’t agree with what they taught—for example, Jesus’ teaching on divorce. With the advent of the printing press it’s not so easy to slip in an actual edit to the text (though Thomas Jefferson did a relatively commendable job of it!), but that doesn’t lessen the amount of practical editing Christians do in order to have a religion of their own making.

 

I’m not sure that separating cherry-picking based on the “intuitions” of a layperson from cherry-picking based on the “succinct principles and methods” of a trained exegete makes any difference to my point. Cherry-picking, picking cherries.

 

On what basis do Christian interpreters decide that we should or shouldn’t stone gays? On what basis do they decide that slavery probably is or isn’t a great idea? On what basis do they decide that women should or shouldn’t be allowed to “teach or exercise authority over a man”? How do they determine which gospel writer was most correct, since they do not agree on many things? Are these things decided by faith? By historical-critical methods? By the consensus of the Church (HAHAHAHAHA!)? By a concoction of interpretive schemes that only the initiated have access to?

 

For me, simple-minded as I am, I see it like this. Either the bible is inspired, infallible, inerrant, perspicuous, and all the rest; or it isn’t. If it is, Christians have a lot of explaining to do for the many places it obviously is in error and manifests itself as a purely human creation; and for the fact that every interpreter reads it differently and sets up camp—gathering  disciples, and splitting from each other as other interpretations arise, and on it goes. If it isn’t . . . then Christians still have a lot of explaining to do.

 

It sounds as if you are suggesting a third option—the bible is a mixture of inspired and human, common and elevated; and the skilled exegete knows how to strain out the mixture. Several problems with this: first, this makes the exegete the holder of the truth, and all the commoners must submit to their expertise. Just leave it to the pros! Second, I think it is reasonable to expect that if god exists and he wished to communicate his will through a book, he could (and should) have ensured that it really was without error and was really perspicuous—so that even a child might understand. I mean, it’s only the difference between Heaven and Hell, right?

 

Sorry for the length—this topic is hard to address in an abbreviated way. I don’t mean to badger you with questions. I start typing and don’t know when to stop. Thanks for discussing these things with me, Philo.

[Justus]

[bornagainathiest]

Yes Justus,  Christianity is a zombie religion that can never be fully killed off.

 

But it can be effectively and efficiently neutralized by the facts. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

 

 

Your view above is the approach the the bible I had for several years, before I left the faith. This was my last stand, so to speak, before I realized I was just playing a game with myself. I realized a few things:

 

 

 

 

**Your view above is the approach to the bible I had for several years, before I left the faith. This was my last stand, so to speak, before I realized I was just playing a game with myself. I realized a few things:

 

 

 

You said that you arrived at a point when you realized you were “just playing a game” with the bible. Perhaps, it is a kind of game, and it’s one we play with ourselves most of all. Sometimes we play it with our families and communities, sometimes with the celestial panorama just outside our walls. Sure, could be a game, but the thing is, if it is a game, we may want to consider what kind of game we think we’ve been played (ala Wittgenstein, for instance.) Are we in fact playing a science game, or ?  All of these; none of these? As for myself, I think the game is primarily made up of the latter four options above. It could hardly be one of physical science. As we know, many Christians try to make their religion a ‘science game,’ and when they do, it’s one they often quickly lose…

 

It sounds as though you may be using "game" in a somewhat sense different from Wittgenstein's, Philo, but maybe not.  Anyway, Wittgenstein applied his "game" metaphor to language primarily.  Perhaps you're up on that already.  In the Tractatus, his view of language is that it's like a map of reality.  As he worked toward the Philosophical Investigations, he gave up an attempt to establish an account of language on the assumption that it ties to reality. Instead he focused on what people do with words, for which the game metaphor was apt.  You need rules and conventions to play a game, and things that aren't covered by those rules aren't part of the game, so they can't be addressed in the game.

 

Can you put a "science game" on a level with "one of history, language, culture, or philosophy"? Isn't language the fundamental game?  Then speakers of language, using it, engage in sub-games.

 

??

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for your lively response!

 

 

You said that you arrived at a point when you realized you were “just playing a game” with the bible. Perhaps, it is a kind of game, and it’s one we play with ourselves most of all. Sometimes we play it with our families and communities, sometimes with the celestial panorama just outside our walls. Sure, could be a game, but the thing is, if it is a game, we may want to consider what kind of game we think we’ve been played (ala Wittgenstein, for instance.) Are we in fact playing a science game, or one of history, language, culture, or philosophy?  All of these; none of these? As for myself, I think the game is primarily made up of the latter four options above. It could hardly be one of physical science. As we know, many Christians try to make their religion a ‘science game,’ and when they do, it’s one they often quickly lose…

 

 

Pardon me, I’m a little lost on this first point—I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at here.  I’m not the smartest man in the world, so I constantly need clarification—I hope you don’t mind. Of the five games you mention: science, history, language, culture, and philosophy, you say you tend to think the game is made up primarily of the latter four. By this, are you saying that religion speaks to the last four, but is not intended to speak to science—and therefore any scientific errors in the bible can be dismissed since they are not part of the game we play as  religious beings anyway?

 

Of course you know that the bible is also unreliable in the other areas. Inaccuracies abound in history (the wildly differing accounts in Acts and Galatians of Paul’s apostolic itinerary), language (Tower of Babel), culture (this can mean so many different things—I think most of the bible’s inaccuracies in this can be addressed as historical errors), and philosophy (the anti-intellectualism of the bible is well documented).

 

I could be misunderstanding you entirely. If so, I’m sorry.

 

Interesting metaphor, this Smorgasbord Approach. [...]

 

Sure, picking and choosing ‘nice bits’ from a book, which are displayed as a Smorgasbord, could contribute to some form(s) of psychological self-stimulation, but how do we discern between those people who are in fact just mentally pleasuring themselves via the bible from those people who seem to “pick and choose” while at the same time exhibiting exegetical skill and scholarship, and who appear to select and prioritize various ideas, laws, or other sundry items based on  succinct principles or methods rather than on a litany of intuitions. Don’t we need to make a distinction between these two varieties (or more) of biblical interpretation, or the lack thereof?

 

 

As for smorgasbord Christianity—every Christian does it. All of them. In fact, even the textual record of the biblical manuscripts show that various scribes actually added to/subtracted from the texts if they didn’t agree with what they taught—for example, Jesus’ teaching on divorce. With the advent of the printing press it’s not so easy to slip in an actual edit to the text (though Thomas Jefferson did a relatively commendable job of it!), but that doesn’t lessen the amount of practical editing Christians do in order to have a religion of their own making.

 

I’m not sure that separating cherry-picking based on the “intuitions” of a layperson from cherry-picking based on the “succinct principles and methods” of a trained exegete makes any difference to my point. Cherry-picking, picking cherries.

 

On what basis do Christian interpreters decide that we should or shouldn’t stone gays? On what basis do they decide that slavery probably is or isn’t a great idea? On what basis do they decide that women should or shouldn’t be allowed to “teach or exercise authority over a man”? How do they determine which gospel writer was most correct, since they do not agree on many things? Are these things decided by faith? By historical-critical methods? By the consensus of the Church (HAHAHAHAHA!)? By a concoction of interpretive schemes that only the initiated have access to?

 

For me, simple-minded as I am, I see it like this. Either the bible is inspired, infallible, inerrant, perspicuous, and all the rest; or it isn’t. If it is, Christians have a lot of explaining to do for the many places it obviously is in error and manifests itself as a purely human creation; and for the fact that every interpreter reads it differently and sets up camp—gathering  disciples, and splitting from each other as other interpretations arise, and on it goes. If it isn’t . . . then Christians still have a lot of explaining to do.

 

It sounds as if you are suggesting a third option—the bible is a mixture of inspired and human, common and elevated; and the skilled exegete knows how to strain out the mixture. Several problems with this: first, this makes the exegete the holder of the truth, and all the commoners must submit to their expertise. Just leave it to the pros! Second, I think it is reasonable to expect that if god exists and he wished to communicate his will through a book, he could (and should) have ensured that it really was without error and was really perspicuous—so that even a child might understand. I mean, it’s only the difference between Heaven and Hell, right?

 

Sorry for the length—this topic is hard to address in an abbreviated way. I don’t mean to badger you with questions. I start typing and don’t know when to stop. Thanks for discussing these things with me, Philo.

 

StJeff,

 

I just want to let you know that I have read your post. You've challenged me here, and I thank you. I'm still digesting the implications, but I'll try to edit in a response here in a few days or so.

 

2PhiloVoid

[LimitedEdition]

I think 2PV is the first christian who isn't just a troll. I really do not believe that the others are actual christians what so ever. 

[Justus]

I think 2PV is the first christian who isn't just a troll. I really do not believe that the others are actual christians what so ever. 

 

Thank you.

 

[mymistake]

 

I think 2PV is the first christian who isn't just a troll. I really do not believe that the others are actual christians what so ever. 

 

Thank you. 

 

 

You have to admit Justus that you have worked hard to earn your reputation.

[duderonomy]

I got the same "thank you" response from Justus in another thread...don't recall just now but I can find it if need be. 

I had replied to the OP that no Christians had responded, and this after Justus had posted in the thread.

 

I don't see anywhere on his profile where he says he is a Christian.  Maybe he's a Holy Ghostian?

[2PhiloVoid]

Ficino,

 

It sounds as though you may be using "game" in a somewhat sense different from Wittgenstein's, Philo, but maybe not.

 

Yes, Ficinino, I am adapting Wittgentstein’s Language Game theory in a general way for my own purposes, which is why I merely alluded to Wittgenstein. I think there are elements in his thinking that may be utilized for possible analogy.

 

Anyway, Wittgenstein applied his "game" metaphor to language primarily.  Perhaps you're up on that already.  In the Tractatus, his view of language is that it's like a map of reality.

 

…yes, and also like a ladder that one can use to see ‘better,’ and then the ladder must also me thrown away (if I’ve understood him correctly), since “limits of my language are the limits of my world.”

 

As he worked toward the Philosophical Investigations, he gave up an attempt to establish an account of language on the assumption that it ties to reality. Instead he focused on what people do with words, for which the game metaphor was apt.  You need rules and conventions to play a game, and things that aren't covered by those rules aren't part of the game, so they can't be addressed in the game.

 

Yes, I can see there’s no surprising, here. That’s basically how I understand the progression of his thought.

 

Can you put a "science game" on a level with "one of history, language, culture, or philosophy"? Isn't language the fundamental game?  Then speakers of language, using it, engage in sub-games.

 

I’m with you here.  Those sub-games then, from what I understand of Wittengenstein, are qualified as “practices,” and thus Christianity could be construed (by me) as a sub-game (practice) extending from religious and historical language, particularly ancient language (and its attending paradigms). What this means (for me) is that the Biblical religion(s) is thus hardly one that can be, or should be, expected to interplay with a “practice” that relies on mathematics as the working language unto that very practice.

 

Which leads me to ask, what was the language game (and cultural thought world) of the various Biblical writers? The answering of this question, which is multifaceted, is where I think Christians often fail in their attempt to claim and convey the Bible—because they’ve not understood the language game and practice of the ancient’s language game(s).  (I surmise that this is because it would mean that ‘revelation,’ whether General or Special, is of a somewhat different nature(s) than what has been previously and traditionally thought, as represented by later systematized Christian theologians).

 

However, after all that, I’ll confess that I’m no expert on Wittgentstein, and his theories were (as all things) not impervious to scrutiny and failure, so if you feel you need to, ‘snip apart’ my personal views on this.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid