Life, The Universe, And Everything; Continued

[BuddyFerris]

Dear Willa,

Perhaps I didn't say it well (that's happened once or twice); I don't think science is a bad tool, nor is the scientific method to be abandoned, but a tendency in popular science, often expressed on this forum, is to attempt the reduction of non-quantifiable observations into quantified operands. (human being1=qorganism cell count1), and perhaps we shouldn't expect much success. When we're able to quantify honor or count the components of mercy, perhaps we can be more optimistic. A general behavioral model that would have predicted Masada may forever be beyond any simple or complex mathematical description. ... Does that make sense?

Buddy

But this is the whole point Buddy. Science is NOT reductionism.

... Take for example a beautiful piece of art. Think of something by Turner or Van Gogh. You’d no more break those up into one centimetre by one centimetre squares in an effort to appreciate it, than you try to fly by holding a chicken in each hand and jumping off a cliff.

 

What you could do though was examine how it made viewers feel by showing them these pictures while they were in a NMR machine and see first hand how beautiful art affects the brain. You could even attempt to quantify why some pictures are pretty well universally celebrated and others not, by attempting to look for familiarities.

Thanks

 

Spatz

Dear Sparrow; I feel like we're almost communicating; almost close enough to grasp it. If it won't be too frustrating, I'd like to sort through one item just to see if we can capture the disconnect that happens on my end. This is not to be critical or picky, but to help me understand. Your English is fine, by the way.

 

1. I'll politely agree with your statement,"Science is NOT reductionism."

2. That concept is contained in what I said previously. "When reductionism's argument is offered here, I'm likely to point out as you do, that science (physics) won't solve everything (by providing a full description and explanation of qualitative but non-quantifiable real constructs)." Followed by, "I don't think science is a bad tool, nor is the scientific method to be abandoned, but a tendency in popular science, often expressed on this forum, is to attempt the reduction of non-quantifiable observations into quantified operands."

3. And to illustrate the tendency, you'll note your response begins with the point about a piece of art being beautiful, a qualitative analysis of attributes that firmly resist conversion to quantitative data. Yet your subsequent suggestion is an attempt to quantify the various attributes. Reductionism aborning.

 

Now please don't be offended by my observation; I'm not trying to be either argumentative or obtuse. Help me understand how your response isn't what I was describing; the tendency in popular science (often seen here on this forum) to move from qualitative (art?) observation to quantitative (physics) metrics; from non-quantifiable observations into quantified operands; from apples to oranges. We say reductionism is a tool, but perhaps it's so firmly entrenched that it's hard to put it down.

 

Seriously puzzled,

Buddy

[Legion]

We say reductionism is a tool, but perhaps it's so firmly entrenched that it's hard to put it down.

 

Agreed.

 

Please don't mind me folks. I am just interested in where this is going.

 

Edit: I hope we all end up in new territory.

[BuddyFerris]

Either way, please don’t make the mistake of thinking my English is not good enough to recognize a subtle ad homonym attack – as if I’m responsible for the lack of progress of women’s suffrage in Switzerland and as if you’re responsible for the reluctance to end slavery in the USA – clearly we’re not. Despite Grandpa Harley’s very gracious concerns about my “literalness†with English, please do understand that I’ve learnt and used English since I was an early teen and made a career with it.

Aargh!! No,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no! Dear lady, If I wanted to insult you (and I don't), I wouldn't hint. And I dint! And I'm not that subtle anyway; just ask my wife. I used the suffrage issue because it was the first case that came up on the search for evolutionary milestones in modern Swiss law. (Don't spit the dummy until I give you a good reason! Your English is fine; as good as mine, anyway; and you're able to examine the text for multiple layers and meanings. I don't write in layers; too much work for too little appreciation and too likely to be missed entirely.)

Respectfully,

Buddy

[dano]

and this

 

"Grant me for a moment the context for a conjecture on God and prophets. If a real prophet were to be sent to you with a word from God, and if the prophet came and spoke it in your presence while his helper wrote it down, that's generally what is described as 'God breathed'. It still has the flavor and even the wording the prophet provided as he painted the picture of what he saw and heard, but the content originated with God. Within the context of this conjecture, it's a big deal, but not a difficult concept. It doesn't require that what is presented to you be anything other than that. It is just a word spoken to you. You can read it to me, and I can get principle and concept easily. But if it's for you, then I can't take it for myself without some additional support. Now close the context and take a look."

 

Is long winded nonsense.

 

Are you calling, God talking to people, nonsense?

 

Are you suggesting that god doesn't dictate to people every now and then?

 

Yea like god dictates a bunch of stuff to prophets, that no one understands, but doesn't have the time stop the suffering of millions of people.

 

I see buddy ain't getting any better!

 

Glory!

[BuddyFerris]

Willa: Well Buddy, I don’t think you’re “fringe†at all – in fact I think quite the opposite - you’re clearly very main-stream. Most of the christians today think and act and justify their lack of observance of the bible in the same way you do. Goodness me, I did the same thing.

 

Either way, it doesn’t really matter. You’re not living like you’re explicitly commanded to do by Jesus – i.e. follow the Old Testament rules and laws, and all your protestations and justifications are clearly just intellectual exercises that have absolutely no grounding in the Bible whatsoever.

 

Simply put, you and most other christians are not very christianly at all. You are not doing as Jesus commanded.

 

There’s no other interpretation.

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

Dear Sparrow,

Actually, there may be. A passage to which you refer is Matthew 5:18. Your preamble to the passage was, "There’s also that pesky little item in the NEW Testament where Jesus confirms the Old Testament. It’s patently obvious that Jesus saw the OT as the absolute, unchanging, set-in-concrete Word of God."

 

Here's the immediate context where Jesus says he came to fulfill the law because it can't be finished and closed until he does. Read that sentence twice. Here's the passage:

 

¹⁷ “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. ¹⁸ For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

 

Jesus says the opposite of requiring obedience to the OT law. He's just said that he came to fulfill the law so that it could be complete and filed away as having served it's purpose.

 

Then he talks about the law and the problem with adhering to just the letter of the law; murder, adultery, divorce, going the second mile. He's raising the bar, setting a higher standard than the numerous rules about what to eat or wear.

 

Jesus is talking about the religious folks and their showcase adherence to the law, and their failure to achieve what the law intended, a great heart. As he's teaching, he contrasts the law's requirement with the requirement of a great heart.

 

"You've heard of old that you must not murder; if you do, you'll face judgment." That's the law Jesus is referring to, and he goes on to say, "Your in danger of judgment if you're so much as angry!" "Love your neighbors? Ha! Love your enemies!!"

 

He concludes by pointing out that if his hearers didn't find a real righteousness, one better than the religious folks (who were known for their obedience to the law), they'd miss the kingdom completely.

 

Remember, I'm not evangelizing, just talking. If I'm wrong on this particular passage, I'm open to discuss it.

Respectfully,

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

What if the neighbor is an atheist? Does Christians show love to their neighboring atheists, or homosexuals, or Jews, or Muslims or ...? I think the law Jesus gave is very nice, but how much of the fruits of the spirit do we really see in the world, or ever in history? And what about "you will know the tree from the fruit", does it apply to the Christian tree?

[Sparrow]

Dear Sparrow; I feel like we're almost communicating; almost close enough to grasp it. If it won't be too frustrating, I'd like to sort through one item just to see if we can capture the disconnect that happens on my end. This is not to be critical or picky, but to help me understand. Your English is fine, by the way.

 

1. I'll politely agree with your statement,"Science is NOT reductionism."

2. That concept is contained in what I said previously. "When reductionism's argument is offered here, I'm likely to point out as you do, that science (physics) won't solve everything (by providing a full description and explanation of qualitative but non-quantifiable real constructs)." Followed by, "I don't think science is a bad tool, nor is the scientific method to be abandoned, but a tendency in popular science, often expressed on this forum, is to attempt the reduction of non-quantifiable observations into quantified operands."

3. And to illustrate the tendency, you'll note your response begins with the point about a piece of art being beautiful, a qualitative analysis of attributes that firmly resist conversion to quantitative data. Yet your subsequent suggestion is an attempt to quantify the various attributes. Reductionism aborning.

 

Now please don't be offended by my observation; I'm not trying to be either argumentative or obtuse. Help me understand how your response isn't what I was describing; the tendency in popular science (often seen here on this forum) to move from qualitative (art?) observation to quantitative (physics) metrics; from non-quantifiable observations into quantified operands; from apples to oranges. We say reductionism is a tool, but perhaps it's so firmly entrenched that it's hard to put it down.

 

Seriously puzzled,

Buddy

 

Buddy, I'm not offended.

 

3. And to illustrate the tendency, you'll note your response begins with the point about a piece of art being beautiful, a qualitative analysis of attributes that firmly resist conversion to quantitative data. Yet your subsequent suggestion is an attempt to quantify the various attributes. Reductionism aborning.

 

Buddy, this is not reductionism. This is simple analysis.

 

Reductionism would be something like cutting it up into x dimensional squares and attempting to count the colours and make some profund statement about art. You could do that but it on't help much. Analysing it would produce a number of qualitative AND quantitative statements.

 

Besides, how do you think you learn art? What do you think people do when they learn to make art. They learn technique and mixing of colours and various methods to produce certain affects. This is a very reductionistic approach.

 

On top of this, analysing "art" or anything like it doesn't stop someone from appreciating its' beauty. When I studied ceramics and learnt how to make raku and other styles, it helped me appreciate the art even more. One of the things we learnt was reductionistic in terms of shaping, glazes, etc, but the "art" remains and the beauty too.

 

No offence meant, but are you sure it isn't just a fear you have of taking away the mystery that you are blocked by this?

 

Now please don't be offended by my observation; I'm not trying to be either argumentative or obtuse. Help me understand how your response isn't what I was describing; the tendency in popular science (often seen here on this forum) to move from qualitative (art?) observation to quantitative (physics) metrics; from non-quantifiable observations into quantified operands; from apples to oranges. We say reductionism is a tool, but perhaps it's so firmly entrenched that it's hard to put it down.

 

Again, I’m not offended.

 

I don’t know the answer to this, but to provide some sort of response to your point, it could be a number of things – from education to social programming to the way your culture and my culture handles our dealings with people with knowledge.

 

If you’ve been educated that science is purely and simply “reductionism†and that has been reinforced by your social background, then apart from being ripped-off by an education system that’s sold you short, it’s not surprising you don’t know what science is (meant in the politest possible way).

 

Going by what I’ve been taught, science is not just physics and nor is physics purely reductionist. What I was taught is that science is a meta-tool that has a number of sub-tools that a person can use to try and illicit more information about some item or topic. Sure, one of the first items you use is reductionism, but if you just stop there in your analysis, you’re again selling yourself short.

 

:EDIT: BUt what do I know? My education was too heavy in the sciences anyway and I had to learn about the humanities later in life.

 

In all scientific endeavours you need to get to the crux of the matter and that may (at times), mean cutting away all the items that are unnecessary – this is reductionism in action, but eventually you have to start dealing with the real core of the item.

 

Suppose you reduce to such a point that the phenomenon you’re trying to observe is suddenly gone. What do you do? Clearly you’ve taken out an important ingredient. So do you go on reducing? Clearly not! You go back and forward and around and up and down and whatever – all till you find all the items that are necessary and clearly required. Then you begin your analysis.

 

Of course, if this doesn’t work, you try another approach. Like I suggested in my 2 second example of learning how art is appreciated by putting people in an NMR machine and seeing how that affects the brain. Maybe that’s a bad idea, but does one give up there? Clearly not if you want to understand. If you want to understand something, that is really understand, then there’s numerous approaches one can take to get it. I just gave a simple example, and with more time, I could come up with something better.

 

Either way, the point is that you can do investigation without having to reduce something out of existence.

 

Consider also that if you do take something away from an observed phenomenon and it suddenly stops working; you’ve learnt something haven’t you? You’ve discovered a truth haven’t you? You know that the item you took away is very important.

 

In your analysis you’d document this item is an important component. It won’t work without it. Someone else would come along and in their peer review determine if that was true or not. If they get the same results, it’s a fact, if they don’t you or they are crap scientists. Someone else will need to validate the results.

 

Are you starting to get the idea?

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

[Sparrow]

We say reductionism is a tool, but perhaps it's so firmly entrenched that it's hard to put it down.

 

Agreed.

 

Please don't mind me folks. I am just interested in where this is going.

 

Edit: I hope we all end up in new territory.

 

The point is whether the tool is being recognized as a tool or it is being misunderstood and being labelled as something it is not.

 

The other thing of course is that now we're discussing.

 

Who knows where it will end?

 

That's the fun part!!!

 

:-)

 

Spatz

[Sparrow]

Either way, please don’t make the mistake of thinking my English is not good enough to recognize a subtle ad homonym attack – as if I’m responsible for the lack of progress of women’s suffrage in Switzerland and as if you’re responsible for the reluctance to end slavery in the USA – clearly we’re not. Despite Grandpa Harley’s very gracious concerns about my “literalness†with English, please do understand that I’ve learnt and used English since I was an early teen and made a career with it.

Aargh!! No,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no! Dear lady, If I wanted to insult you (and I don't), I wouldn't hint. And I dint! And I'm not that subtle anyway; just ask my wife. I used the suffrage issue because it was the first case that came up on the search for evolutionary milestones in modern Swiss law. (Don't spit the dummy until I give you a good reason! Your English is fine; as good as mine, anyway; and you're able to examine the text for multiple layers and meanings. I don't write in layers; too much work for too little appreciation and too likely to be missed entirely.)

Respectfully,

Buddy

 

Errrrr ................ OK.

 

Sorry if I'm sensitive to this but I've had similar conversations that have headed down this way before, only to told that I have no right to critisize because switzerland did something - before I was even born.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

 

Best Regards

 

Spatz

[Sparrow]

Dear Sparrow,

Actually, there may be. A passage to which you refer is Matthew 5:18. Your preamble to the passage was, "There’s also that pesky little item in the NEW Testament where Jesus confirms the Old Testament. It’s patently obvious that Jesus saw the OT as the absolute, unchanging, set-in-concrete Word of God."

 

Here's the immediate context where Jesus says he came to fulfill the law because it can't be finished and closed until he does. Read that sentence twice. Here's the passage:

 

¹⁷ “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. ¹⁸ For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

 

Jesus says the opposite of requiring obedience to the OT law. He's just said that he came to fulfill the law so that it could be complete and filed away as having served it's purpose.

 

Then he talks about the law and the problem with adhering to just the letter of the law; murder, adultery, divorce, going the second mile. He's raising the bar, setting a higher standard than the numerous rules about what to eat or wear.

 

Jesus is talking about the religious folks and their showcase adherence to the law, and their failure to achieve what the law intended, a great heart. As he's teaching, he contrasts the law's requirement with the requirement of a great heart.

 

"You've heard of old that you must not murder; if you do, you'll face judgment." That's the law Jesus is referring to, and he goes on to say, "Your in danger of judgment if you're so much as angry!" "Love your neighbors? Ha! Love your enemies!!"

 

He concludes by pointing out that if his hearers didn't find a real righteousness, one better than the religious folks (who were known for their obedience to the law), they'd miss the kingdom completely.

 

Remember, I'm not evangelizing, just talking. If I'm wrong on this particular passage, I'm open to discuss it.

Respectfully,

Buddy

 

 

Hmmm .... I don't know ... either way, it still looks like cherry picking to me.

 

Hate the fag, hate the crustacean, hate cotton and flax mixes - then - hate the fag, love the crustacean, ooh what nice fashion!!!

 

It's all pretty weird to me - particularly with the benefit of giving up religion sometime ago.

 

Naturally, there is also the issue of the treatment of women in both the old and new testament. This is completely bollocks!!

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

[Kuroikaze]

Hello GH. Sort of expected you to weigh in on this.

At issue for the moment if you'll allow, is whether the scriptural content should be understood as if the words were spoken today, or as it was offered at the time.

 

Literalists (fundamentalists?) insist that the scripture is somehow to be understood in only one way as though spoken anew in every culture and every generation. I'll propose that it's a linguistically unsound to suggest that the scripture (or any document) will in every case serve the same purpose with the same applicability in every generation. Scripture being 'God breathed' is profoundly true, but I think it's overplayed by both religionists and critics.

 

Grant me for a moment the context for a conjecture on God and prophets. If a real prophet were to be sent to you with a word from God, and if the prophet came and spoke it in your presence while his helper wrote it down, that's generally what is described as 'God breathed'. It still has the flavor and even the wording the prophet provided as he painted the picture of what he saw and heard, but the content originated with God. Within the context of this conjecture, it's a big deal, but not a difficult concept. It doesn't require that what is presented to you be anything other than that. It is just a word spoken to you. You can read it to me, and I can get principle and concept easily. But if it's for you, then I can't take it for myself without some additional support. Now close the context and take a look.

 

All of history's fighting and squabbling can't change the simple rule of context. To whom was it written, on what occasion or to what purpose, and in what historical context. If we were to treat the documents of government with the same rules, I think the results would be unintelligible to us but perhaps more easily reconciled by a reasonable historian.

 

Now that doesn't come close to addressing all your complaints about the Bible, I know. But it does cloud the issue a bit when this one issue isn't handled well.

 

Ah. Dano's back. Thought we'd lost him.

Buddy

 

I felt I should say something to this. If you recall I decided not to talk to you for a while after a couple of things you said...didn't see any point in getting angry, and I was busy moving across country anyway.

 

Anyway, this seems like an interesting thing for a Christian to say, it seems that in the end you are suggesting that one cannot understand "god's word" merely by reading it. One needs an education in both history and linguistics to really approach the book, otherwise they will misunderstand it, perhaps you are even suggesting that the bible could not be used to justify modern instances of genocide and slavery if it had been properly understood and interpreted.

 

This brings up so questions I'd like to put to you.

 

First off, I'll mention that I actually majored in religion in college, even took some Greek, but I will freely admit that many people know the subject better than I, I know almost no Hebrew and only a bit of Greek that I can remember, I doubt very much I would be considered educated enough to interpret the bible properly, after all my interpretations led me to belief that the bible is not "god's word"

 

So, how much education is enough to interpret the bible? Most people in the high echelon of education in biblical history and linguistics are very liberal, and do no hold to anything close to mainline Christian teachings of ANY age. Why are the most educated on the subject generally denying the claim that scripture is "god breathed?"

 

And if the only way to understand the bible is having years of study in history and linguistics behind you then what the hell is the point anyway? Saying that If I understood the historical context I would know the bible doesn't approve of slavery...even if you are right, so what?

 

I, and most of the world, knows that slavery is wrong already, and I didn't need a P.H.D. to figure it out. And to those who haven't figured out slavery is wrong, I doubt the bible would help them to see that...I mean perhaps if you got modern slavers to study linguistics a few years they would see that...but what is the chances of that happening?

 

So I really don't see what the point is...I can spend a dozen years studding history to understand the bible, so I can learn morality...or I can simply figure the whole thing out myself...It can't take any longer, and using reality as a guide for morality seems like a more sure thing anyway.

 

This whole thing reminds me of my mom. When we have discussions about religion (which is seldom anymore) I will always point out something historians have discovered which doesn't jive with her literal understanding of the bible, she tells me I'm wrong, but when pressed, can't give me a good reason why. I have always told her, "if you think I'm wrong, then study the stuff yourself, I'm not infallible, you may find out I'm wrong, but it is silly to claim I'm wrong without the information to back it up" Her response is always the same, "I don't have time to study useless stuff like that, I have a life to lead, bills to pay, children to take care off"

 

Now I could take offense at her insinuating that the 5 years I spent in college was spent studding useless stuff, but I let it go. The point is, that the average person says they believe the bible is gods word, but when it comes to actually understanding it, they have "better things to do"

 

Another thing that this makes me wonder is that according to you, 90% of the people who have read the bible through history have grossly misinterpreted it.

 

So let me ask you this, if you handed in a paper in a writing class and the teacher had the other students in the class read it, and 90% of them totally misunderstood your point, what kind of grade would the teacher be likely to give you? Clarity (and knowing your audience) is one of the most important elements of good writing, so why, is the bible written so poorly?

 

To reiterate my questions in case they got lost in there:

If the bible cannot be understood without years of studding outside sources, why should I bother when I can learn how to live a good life on my own?

Why, if it takes lots of education to understand the bible, do the most educated in the subject NOT embrace traditional Christianity?

What kind of grade would a teacher give you for a paper that 90% of the intended audience could not understand it.

[dano]

Willa: Well Buddy, I don’t think you’re “fringe†at all – in fact I think quite the opposite - you’re clearly very main-stream. Most of the christians today think and act and justify their lack of observance of the bible in the same way you do. Goodness me, I did the same thing.

 

Either way, it doesn’t really matter. You’re not living like you’re explicitly commanded to do by Jesus – i.e. follow the Old Testament rules and laws, and all your protestations and justifications are clearly just intellectual exercises that have absolutely no grounding in the Bible whatsoever.

 

Simply put, you and most other christians are not very christianly at all. You are not doing as Jesus commanded.

 

There’s no other interpretation.

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

Dear Sparrow,

Actually, there may be. A passage to which you refer is Matthew 5:18. Your preamble to the passage was, "There’s also that pesky little item in the NEW Testament where Jesus confirms the Old Testament. It’s patently obvious that Jesus saw the OT as the absolute, unchanging, set-in-concrete Word of God."

 

Here's the immediate context where Jesus says he came to fulfill the law because it can't be finished and closed until he does. Read that sentence twice. Here's the passage:

 

¹⁷ “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. ¹⁸ For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

 

Jesus says the opposite of requiring obedience to the OT law. He's just said that he came to fulfill the law so that it could be complete and filed away as having served it's purpose.

 

Then he talks about the law and the problem with adhering to just the letter of the law; murder, adultery, divorce, going the second mile. He's raising the bar, setting a higher standard than the numerous rules about what to eat or wear.

 

Jesus is talking about the religious folks and their showcase adherence to the law, and their failure to achieve what the law intended, a great heart. As he's teaching, he contrasts the law's requirement with the requirement of a great heart.

 

"You've heard of old that you must not murder; if you do, you'll face judgment." That's the law Jesus is referring to, and he goes on to say, "Your in danger of judgment if you're so much as angry!" "Love your neighbors? Ha! Love your enemies!!"

 

He concludes by pointing out that if his hearers didn't find a real righteousness, one better than the religious folks (who were known for their obedience to the law), they'd miss the kingdom completely.

 

Remember, I'm not evangelizing, just talking. If I'm wrong on this particular passage, I'm open to discuss it.

Respectfully,

Buddy

 

 

If your not evangelising, why do you talk about Jesus as if it were a proven fact that he actually existed.

 

Why do you give the hackneyed, nonsensical, mythical story of the "ransom" so much significance?

 

Why do you say God talks to you and others?

 

Why do you pray to a god in the presence of others, when you don't even know what God is, or if one exists.

 

No normal person who has never heard of this crap would ever come up with it themselves. It has to be spread by people like you who have signed over their brains to the cult.

[BuddyFerris]

...

Either way, the point is that you can do investigation without having to reduce something out of existence.

 

Consider also that if you do take something away from an observed phenomenon and it suddenly stops working; you’ve learnt something haven’t you? You’ve discovered a truth haven’t you? You know that the item you took away is very important.

 

In your analysis you’d document this item is an important component. It won’t work without it. Someone else would come along and in their peer review determine if that was true or not. If they get the same results, it’s a fact, if they don’t you or they are crap scientists. Someone else will need to validate the results.

 

Are you starting to get the idea?

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

I do, and thanks for taking the time to illuminate your ideas surrounding the issue. I think I can say we agree. You accurately point out that I would morn the loss of mystery (or whatever attribute failed to survive quantification).

 

We're perhaps dealing with two separate issues here, the first of which is the possibility of overreaching reductionism, and the second being politically biased interpretation of scientific data. You mentioned earlier the political and other impediments in bringing scientific information to society's attention. I read an article on the phenomenon of young love awhile back. The author reduced it entirely to 'mind as machine' with hormonal imperatives explaining each non-machine element. Not only was it a disappointingly dehumanized presentation, it was incomplete science and a biased presentation. It is at that level of interpretation that I would question the objectivity of the author and the accuracy of their characterization.

 

I think we've established some mutual understanding for at least these introductory issues. Surprisingly difficult work.

 

Hmmm .... I don't know ... either way, it still looks like cherry picking to me.

... "Naturally, there is also the issue of the treatment of women in both the old and new testament. This is completely bollocks!!"

A pointed question here, if I may before winding down for the night. We were talking about Jesus fulfilling the requirements of the law and setting us free from it. The Mt.5 discussion lays it out, but your response above says you're not OK with the answer I provided. That's fine, but how would you like me to respond, if at all? We could do the passage in greater detail, or we could drop it altogether. We could shelve the issue for awhile or .... I'm just here to exchange thoughts and perhaps offer answers to your questions. We have a lot of other things to talk about already on the table, also.

Have a great weekend,

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

...

To reiterate my questions in case they got lost in there:

If the bible cannot be understood without years of studding outside sources, why should I bother when I can learn how to live a good life on my own?

Why, if it takes lots of education to understand the bible, do the most educated in the subject NOT embrace traditional Christianity?

What kind of grade would a teacher give you for a paper that 90% of the intended audience could not understand it.

Welcome back Kuroikaze. To your questions first, then. I've only my opinion to offer on the issues if you're interested.

Can the Bible be adequately understood by someone with basic reading skills? Sure. Particularly if you start with the easy parts like John.

Does it take significant education to avoid significant error? Not really. Errors of over-thinking are common; scripture describes some of them for us. They're easily overcome.

Does it require years studying outside sources? No. Some study might be helpful, but it's not required, particularly if you're not alone on the journey.

What ... 90% of the intended audience could not understand it. The intended audience understands enough to make honest choices.

 

People spend a lot of effort trying to make the Bible something it's not, or defending it as if it needed their help, or worshiping the book as if that was a good idea.

 

Keep in mind, the Bible is not the revelation of God to mankind so much as it is the record of God's revelation. It's the record of a period of time, some particular people for a particular purpose on a particular series of occasions. That's what it says of itself. What should someone in your position do with it? Perhaps nothing at all. Should you one day find that you know God has pointed you back to the book, well that would be a completely different thing, wouldn't it.

 

If you're persuaded you can learn how to live a good life on your own, why should you bother with the Bible? Don't ask me, pal. I wouldn't recommend it in that circumstance. If you were persuaded you couldn't, I might suggest a section for study.

 

Let's simplify what I've said and what I believe regarding the religious institutions of our past. As GrandpaHarley would point out, it's what it does that counts. How did it walk out the basics? The problems we uncover when we ask such a question have little if anything to do with their ability to interpret the scripture reasonably and accurately. Power plays and politics over organizational structure and position, rule and dogma happen across the continuum of humanity's existence needing no religion to precipitate them.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

If your not evangelising, why do you talk about Jesus as if it were a proven fact that he actually existed.

Why do you give the hackneyed, nonsensical, mythical story of the "ransom" so much significance?

Why do you say God talks to you and others?

Why do you pray to a god in the presence of others, when you don't even know what God is, or if one exists.

No normal person who has never heard of this crap would ever come up with it themselves. It has to be spread by people like you who have signed over their brains to the cult.

Hello, Dano.

Just answering questions, fella. Perhaps you're right, and it will all fade away soon.

If it does, I'll be disappointed, and you'll be out of targets. What's next?

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

What if the neighbor is an atheist? Does Christians show love to their neighboring atheists, or homosexuals, or Jews, or Muslims or ...? I think the law Jesus gave is very nice, but how much of the fruits of the spirit do we really see in the world, or ever in history? And what about "you will know the tree from the fruit", does it apply to the Christian tree?

That's precisely the question, HanS.

Many here have seen the tree bear bitter fruit.

What does that imply?

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

Welcome back Kuroikaze. To your questions first, then. I've only my opinion to offer on the issues if you're interested.

Can the Bible be adequately understood by someone with basic reading skills? Sure. Particularly if you start with the easy parts like John.

Does it take significant education to avoid significant error? Not really. Errors of over-thinking are common; scripture describes some of them for us. They're easily overcome.

Does it require years studying outside sources? No. Some study might be helpful, but it's not required, particularly if you're not alone on the journey.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier post...it seemed you were saying that understanding the historical context of the bible in necessary to interpret it properly....what you say here seems to contradict that.

 

Unless you are saying we should just take our pastors word or someone else who has studied the context...I personally don't like being told what to believe.

 

Personally I would say John is more confusing than most of the NT. It uses more simple language, but it is all couched in metaphor, not to mention the part of John which were added by later authors, like the story of the woman caught in adultery.

 

What ... 90% of the intended audience could not understand it. The intended audience understands enough to make honest choices.

 

I suppose this depends on who you think the audience is, I would say the audience is every person who ever claimed to be a Christian. Take slavery for instance, almost no one thought slavery was wrong until the 17th century when some European countries started talking about getting rid of it. The idea was mostly a product of enlightenment thinkers who were mostly not very enamored with Christianity. In other words, if it weren't for people who DIDN'T take the bible as a moral guide book no one would have seriously considered slavery was wrong.

 

People spend a lot of effort trying to make the Bible something it's not, or defending it as if it needed their help, or worshiping the book as if that was a good idea.

 

Keep in mind, the Bible is not the revelation of God to mankind so much as it is the record of God's revelation. It's the record of a period of time, some particular people for a particular purpose on a particular series of occasions. That's what it says of itself.

 

Then if I'm reading you correctly the bible is a bunch of stories that show that humanity can do both great and terrible things to one another...in that I agree for the most part, but I didn't need the bible to tell me that, a world history book would do just as good in that respect.

 

What should someone in your position do with it? Perhaps nothing at all. Should you one day find that you know God has pointed you back to the book, well that would be a completely different thing, wouldn't it.

 

If there is a god and he wants to talk to me, I would advise him to use another means than the bible...at least if he wants me to take him seriously

 

If you're persuaded you can learn how to live a good life on your own, why should you bother with the Bible? Don't ask me, pal. I wouldn't recommend it in that circumstance. If you were persuaded you couldn't, I might suggest a section for study.

 

perhaps I should ask this a different way. Do you think the Bible (or Christianity in general) has made you a better person? In what way? Feel free to ignore it if that question is too personal.

 

Let's simplify what I've said and what I believe regarding the religious institutions of our past. As GrandpaHarley would point out, it's what it does that counts. How did it walk out the basics? The problems we uncover when we ask such a question have little if anything to do with their ability to interpret the scripture reasonably and accurately. Power plays and politics over organizational structure and position, rule and dogma happen across the continuum of humanity's existence needing no religion to precipitate them.

Buddy

 

Perhaps I've said this to you before, but I'll say it again. I think your take on human behavior is too simplistic. To simply wash the proverbial hand of religion of ANY and ALL bad deeds is just a bit too simple. To say the ONLY cause of the crusades was politics and religion had nothing to do with it just doesn't jive with the facts. Extremist Muslims are not really sincere they are just political activists with a chip on their shoulder...hmm I'm not buying it.

 

Take me as an example, I did and said many things as a Christian that I am no ashamed off. I said some hurtful things to so gay people I knew in college that I wish I could take back now.

 

I ostracized other Christians who I didn't towed the line theologically (it was mostly unintentional but I did it none the less) All well in good until the people in the ministry I was involved in did it to me.

 

Other things too which I won't get into, but the point is that in each one of those cases I was being sincere, I wasn't being manipulated by politics or anything, I truly believed homosexuality was wrong and I was being loving by trying to tell gay people this. There was no guile or deception, and yet people were still hurt.

 

Of course I'm not saying the would would be perfect with out the Christian religion...no one I know of says that. My question would be does Christianity make these problems better or does it exacerbate them, by encouraging a tribal mindset? I think it does, I for one would have never thought there was anything wrong with being gay if not for Christianity...

[Kuroikaze]

double post...stupid interweb

[Kuroikaze]

What if the neighbor is an atheist? Does Christians show love to their neighboring atheists, or homosexuals, or Jews, or Muslims or ...? I think the law Jesus gave is very nice, but how much of the fruits of the spirit do we really see in the world, or ever in history? And what about "you will know the tree from the fruit", does it apply to the Christian tree?

That's precisely the question, HanS.

Many here have seen the tree bear bitter fruit.

What does that imply?

Buddy

 

normally it would imply that the tree is bad...but maybe the soil is grew it was bad.

 

Again, looking at my life, I did things I'm not proud of, but at the time, my interpretation of Christianity told me they were right. Perhaps I was guilty of being too much of a sheep...but then the bible repeatedly calls humans sheep doesn't' it?

[Kuroikaze]

Speaking of odd interpretations of the bible, I just thought of this earlier.

 

The bible is Gods word correct?

In John is says the the Jesus is also the word of god, and is also god.

The bible also says that we should listen to our parents.

Our parents always tell us we are what we eat.

 

Therefore if i eat the bible...does that mean I AM god?

 

 

 

Food for thought

 

Sorry I was feeling weird tonight.

[Vigile]

And if the only way to understand the bible is having years of study in history and linguistics behind you then what the hell is the point anyway? Saying that If I understood the historical context I would know the bible doesn't approve of slavery...even if you are right, so what?

 

Expounding on Kuroikaze's excellent points Buddy, I would put it to you that the higher your IQ and the more education you have, the more tools you have at your disposal to self deceive yourself. I'm not saying that all intelligent and educated people are self-deceived, mind you, but that if they do start with a presup they can defend it better to both themselves and others.

 

When you start with a presup you are not getting further at the truth when you use a vast array of knowledge and intelligence to examine the subject of your presupposition. Rather you just have more facts at your disposal to fit to the assumptions you have blindly made and refuse to question in a fair manner.

 

A better question, and a way to avoid all this potential self-deceit, I think, is to start with a blank slate and look at all the facts, all the history, all the competing claims and ask yourself what is the available evidence saying here?

 

I think the difference between us and Buddy is that we took our presups and asked as fairly as we were able "is this really defensible?" While Buddy took a look at his presup and asked "can I defend it?"

 

[a blunt explanation of the points we have been trying to get across to Buddy since pp1 three threads ago]

[Ouroboros]

What if the neighbor is an atheist? Does Christians show love to their neighboring atheists, or homosexuals, or Jews, or Muslims or ...? I think the law Jesus gave is very nice, but how much of the fruits of the spirit do we really see in the world, or ever in history? And what about "you will know the tree from the fruit", does it apply to the Christian tree?

That's precisely the question, HanS.

Many here have seen the tree bear bitter fruit.

What does that imply?

Buddy

To me that implies that if God does exist, the Gospel and Christianity is not the true religion. If God does exist, a personal faith, outside religion and outside any written dogma or theology is the honest approach. To bind oneself to a particular way of believing is self deceit and can very likely cause more harm than good. Personal faith, without labels, and without a specific book to follow, and without any specific preacher, teacher, guru etc, is the only faith with integrity. To call oneself Christian is to lock oneself up into someone else's beliefs and opinions about God and is then not personal anymore. Find your own path, that's they only path. If Christianity and the Bible was the only truth, we would either have a high percentage of success in it, and low success in other religions, but if it is just like any other religion, this is exactly what we would expect to see.

 

(It's the middle of the night, and my head is kind of mushy, so I might be forced to clarify it tomorrow.)

[Grandpa Harley]

 

Problem with that line... the word 'fulfil' can also mean 'confirm' thus it reads, equally validly 'I come to CONFIRM the law...' which then doesn't change a jot or tittle, but makes the religion almost impossible to sell en masse to gentiles... "You want to give up pork and shell fish... okay... YOU WANT ME TO CUT THE SKIN OFF MY WHAT!?!?!?!? Well, fer-UCK yew!"

[Grandpa Harley]

John? EASY? Luke is short, an easy read and completely unconvincing. John is like being hit with a sock full of damp sand repeatedly.

[Grandpa Harley]

If your not evangelising, why do you talk about Jesus as if it were a proven fact that he actually existed.

Why do you give the hackneyed, nonsensical, mythical story of the "ransom" so much significance?

Why do you say God talks to you and others?

Why do you pray to a god in the presence of others, when you don't even know what God is, or if one exists.

No normal person who has never heard of this crap would ever come up with it themselves. It has to be spread by people like you who have signed over their brains to the cult.

Hello, Dano.

Just answering questions, fella. Perhaps you're right, and it will all fade away soon.

If it does, I'll be disappointed, and you'll be out of targets. What's next?

Buddy

 

This is a good 'Buddy the Bacon Bap' post...

 

one sentence 'response', then answers a question with a question...

 

This is what pisses people through the ceiling (possibly the roof)

 

To knock that weak piece of trash back over the net, it's because the whole idea is corrupt from top to bottom, and it's just apologists like you who try to paint over the fact that it's one of the most evil, controlling, murderous cults that has ever cast a shadow over a people, outside of some South American religions and Islam (and I'm not impressed with modern Jewish Apologetics)

 

Why do you think that your 'loving religion' spawns so many more hate filled people than Atheism or Humanism?