Life, The Universe, And Everything; Continued

[BuddyFerris]

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.

Well good Saturday morning!

 

You're right, K. That's weird.

While entertaining, what you've offered is an illustration of popular biblical criticism; the lite versions are characterized by dropping context and retargeting facts with results like yours. Perhaps you are a god. Your offered logic is obviously impeccable.

 

Interestingly, the same critical method applied to any text (your high school biology book?) will produce equally bizarre and inaccurate results; but nobody cares after HS graduation.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

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]

Hello Vigile.

I'm surprised; I would have expected your argument to be along the opposite line; i.e. the higher your IQ and the more education you have, the more tools you have at your disposal to answer questions for yourself without resorting to religion.

 

(It's an interesting demographic inquiry; 'who believes?' by age, gender, education, region, income, ethnicity, and religion of parents. There are surprisingly illuminating implications; worth a conversation eventually.)

 

I'll agree with you in preferring the blank slate approach; and you're probably right that a well ensconced presup is more difficult to dislodge than a casual, fleeting idea. I recall a friends statement during a philosophical discussion, "I've paid the price to hold this position, so I'll not relinquish it without significant reason." From time to time, I (we) run across information which contradicts our foundational basis. It would be equally unwise to (1) throw out the foundation, or (2) throw out the new information. A more mature response defers decision until an integrated analysis is complete. I have a number of things I don't know how to reconcile, as do you; after thoughtful consideration, the preponderance of the evidence leaves me as I am, and you as you are.

 

Avoiding all self-deceit, should you achieve it, would be the crowning philosophical achievement of the species. Your eventual shortfall is evident in your premise, "look at all the facts, all the history, all the competing claims and ask yourself what is the available evidence saying here?" Can you spot the bias in your stated method? Dano can point it out for us.

 

Let me close by softening that a bit, though. I agree whole heartedly that both self-deceit and personal ignorance must be attacked with relentless fury and brutal honesty. Along with you, I find the casual, lifeless believers to be an impediment to themselves and civilization.

Buddy

I'll set aside my presup if you'll do likewise.

[BuddyFerris]

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?

Another one sentence response; why do so many more violent, hate filled people live without God while the only effective inroads are being made by emerging churches? Pick any inner city and go look. A century of humanistic programs have given us poverty, broken families, failed education, unemployability, violence and perpetual disenfranchisement. Atheism gives them zip. The churches are the only functional components in that environment making measurable progress. And for the record, the programs systematically destroyed families by only providing benefits to single moms, thus removing the one element in the lives of those children that provided a possibility of social stability, viability, and exit from poverty. Oops; 8 sentences. BF

[Grandpa Harley]

and that is so much of a decline compared to, say, the Bowery in the 18th C, Hell's Kitchen , The Abyss of which Jack London wrote of in London, Gin Street that Hogarth illustrated... TBH, the church has had 1600 years to 'make an in roads' and yet, it hasn't...

 

I think you're mistaking 'political will' for 'humanism'... and most politician are (in the US) professing Christians... so...

[Vigile]

I would have expected your argument to be along the opposite line; i.e. the higher your IQ and the more education you have, the more tools you have at your disposal to answer questions for yourself without resorting to religion.

 

It often works out that way, but intelligence and education aren't enough. You have to want to know the truth not just want to be right. It's a hard obstical for many to overcome.

 

Avoiding all self-deceit, should you achieve it, would be the crowning philosophical achievement of the species.

 

True, true. I'm sure I'm still loaded down with self-dellusion. I do my best to not adopt a belief unless I can justify it, thus there are few things that I can say I truly know. Religion, for me is a no brainer though. There is just not enough evidence and available evidence points readily away from the claims.

 

So, in other words, I may be as sorely oblivious as the poor kid with a "kick me" sign on his back as I roll through life imagining that I'm intelligent and good looking, but I'm pretty darn comfortable now with the idea that Christianity is based on myth and that its foundational claims are just not true. I didn't come to that point easily. It took years and lots of self-doubt and fear.

 

Your eventual shortfall is evident in your premise, "look at all the facts, all the history, all the competing claims and ask yourself what is the available evidence saying here?" Can you spot the bias in your stated method? Dano can point it out for us.

 

I guess Dano will have to because it went right over my head. There certainly may be a bias in my conclusion to that question, but the question itself seems pretty fair to me.

 

I'll set aside my presup if you'll do likewise.

 

I'm curious, what is my presup? That religion is based on myth? That was certainly not a presup to me when I started this process 20 years ago. At what point in the discovery process does a token position become a presuposition?

[BuddyFerris]

 

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!"

pleroo play-ro'-o : to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.:--accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

 

Correct; it could be read as 'confirm, confirmed'. Now read it in context. "I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it." or "I came not to destroy the law but to confirm it."

Followed by: "Not one punctuation point will pass away until all of it has been fulfilled." or "Not one punctuation point will pass away until all of it has been confirmed."

 

Either way, GH, it's done and past with the work of Christ. No matter how you read it, Jesus marked the end of it. Everything changes thereafter.

Try again?

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

Erm, no...

 

"I came not to destroy the law but to confirm it. Not one punctuation point will pass away until all of it has been fulfilled."

 

or

 

"I came not to destroy the law but to fulfil it. Not one punctuation point will pass away until all of it has been confirmed."

 

 

read very differently...

 

Just because the word means one thing in one place, doesn't mean it does in another... and if one moves from Greek to Aramaic, he may have not even been saying anything like that at all... I love biblical exegesis... Greek wasn't the spoken language of Jesus, and Greek really doesn't support many of the concepts of Aramaic, but Greek is all we have and we then apply the meaning of the Greek, where there is more than one reading as 'THIS is the TRUTH !!!!' and cherry pick one meaning that suits the purposes of one group at one specific time... I know you're all about the context...

[Kuroikaze]

I'm curious, what is my presup? That religion is based on myth? That was certainly not a presup to me when I started this process 20 years ago. At what point in the discovery process does a token position become a presuposition?

 

Quite correct, it seems that most Christians forget that as ex-christians we have already set aside our presuppositions or otherwise we would still be Christians.

[Grandpa Harley]

The a-priori assumption of a caring God seems to be the biggest presupposition that has been shed.

[Kuroikaze]

Either way, GH, it's done and past with the work of Christ. No matter how you read it, Jesus marked the end of it. Everything changes thereafter.

Try again?

Buddy

 

 

You say this like its all wrapped up and all Christians have always known this, but in fact one of the biggest fights that went on in the first century church was over the issue of obedience of Jewish law. The Ebonites were for continuing Jewish law, the followers of Paul, and Marcion slightly later, were against it. Paul won of course, which is why you interpret that passage the way you do.

 

Had the Ebonites won, well Christianity would not have been much more than a small sect of Jewish mystics, but if it had grown somehow then your reading of the passage would be much different.

[Grandpa Harley]

which is pretty well what you'd expect if my eisegesis was actually another valid reading...

[Sparrow]

 

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!"

 

Ahhhhhhhh ............... super ................ this is the point!!!!!!!!!

 

This is the issue I was trying to identify, but I didn't make it as succinctly or snappily as Grandpa Harley did.

 

The issue is Buddy, with the bible quotes I made, whilst you have a different interpretation, there are plenty of people in your country who have the exact interpretation that I gave you.

 

How do I know this? Well I copied those quotes directly from an American christian fundamentalist web page that advocates them.

 

Seriously, the bible is so “fluffy†that anyone can read anything somewhere in it, and interpret it any damn way they want .... and this makes it extremely dangerous.

 

You’re a nice guy. You have a nearly “friendly†way of interpreting your “holy†book, but ... not everyone is like you. Look at your current administration and consider the way it has conducted itself.

 

Truly buddy, would you want a fundamentalist christian group running your government without opposition?

 

The US economy is screwed. The world economy which tied itself to the US economy in the 80’s because of US insistence of “world peace based on financial interests†is on the edge of the abyss. The USA is already fighting on two fronts, and nearly exhausting itself, and the fundamentalists within your government want to open a third front (with Iran).

 

.... and the sad truth is, it’s all because of religion, wrapped in nationalism, disguised as patriotism – i.e. Jesus draped in an American flag.

 

Ultimately Buddy, this is what you are supporting with your “mild†version of christianity.

 

Sure the bible can be interpreted your way, BUT, it can be interpreted a number of other ways .... and this is not, in any make, shape or form, good. In fact, it’s downright dangerous.

 

Any time some religious nut, who takes it all tooooooo seriously, gets into power we risk annihilation. Fine two hundred ago – people A get wiped out by people B. Not so fine now when some nutter has his finger on the button.

 

Would you really want a fundamentalist religious person (denomination is irrelevant) in charge of fire power of the US Navy? Would you want to give them the US Army? The Marines and the Air force as well? The entire US nuclear arsenal on top of this?

 

Sure the bible has some “nice†parts; but it doesn’t matter when the rest of it is crap. It’s dangerous, mind numbing, stupefying, spirit wrecking, over-simplifying, dumbifying rubbish.

 

This is the problem Buddy - Nice people like you supporting this horror– all because it has “nice†parts or parts that can be interpreted as "nice".

 

Regards

 

Willa

[Grandpa Harley]

"succinctly or snappily"

 

I'm all about the succinct and snappy...

[dano]

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

 

Do you really think you are the only religious whacko in the world?

[Grandpa Harley]

I'd have said the word was 'whacko' but...

[dano]

I'd have said the word was 'whacko' but...

 

 

Thanks Gramps. I am on my daughters computer and can't find spell check! Whacko it is then. Buddy doesn't realise that there are at least two billion more out there just like him.

 

So many whackos, and so little time!

[Grandpa Harley]

Jst to remind you, Dano, I'm not subject to Doctor Webster's rape of English... being British, and all that...

[BuddyFerris]

Erm, no...

 

"I came not to destroy the law but to confirm it. Not one punctuation point will pass away until all of it has been fulfilled."

 

or

 

"I came not to destroy the law but to fulfil it. Not one punctuation point will pass away until all of it has been confirmed."

 

 

read very differently...

 

Just because the word means one thing in one place, doesn't mean it does in another... and if one moves from Greek to Aramaic, he may have not even been saying anything like that at all... I love biblical exegesis... Greek wasn't the spoken language of Jesus, and Greek really doesn't support many of the concepts of Aramaic, but Greek is all we have and we then apply the meaning of the Greek, where there is more than one reading as 'THIS is the TRUTH !!!!' and cherry pick one meaning that suits the purposes of one group at one specific time... I know you're all about the context...

Yep. Context. For instance, since you've looked at the passage and maybe looked up a word or two, then...

You're probably aware that your suggested reading no longer fits the context of the chapter (Mt.5).

You maybe aware, if you really love this stuff, that now it no longer matches the author's (17) employment of of the word elsewhere.

You're probably aware that the passage now no longer fits the context of the book.

And, you're aware that what you're offering isn't biblical exegesis nor is it legitimate textual analysis.

You've been enough to know the difference between an honest argument and a meadow muffin.

Your argument is a meadow muffin.

The more interesting portion of your argument, Grandpa, is that you don't seem to care one way or the other, as long as you can disagree or discredit. Is that the case? Is it helpful to offer arguments you don't yourself believe?

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

Seems you're scratching... who says there was one author? Based on the differences within texts would indicate numerous authors...

 

My argument is that the texts are such a hotch potch of interpolations, edits, and later glosses that one can't say what was said, let alone meant... unless you have someone telling you what it means and not to look behind the curtain...

 

you're the one shovelling cow shit, no matter if you paint it 'meadow muffin' or 'cow shit'... shit is shit and don't' tell me what I fucking well think , asswipe. Remember, you're the intruder here... the unwelcome intruder... if you were a burglar they'd be body bagging one of us out of my house well before now...

[BuddyFerris]

Seems you're scratching... who says there was one author? Based on the differences within texts would indicate numerous authors...

 

My argument is that the texts are such a hotch potch of interpolations, edits, and later glosses that one can't say what was said, let alone meant... unless you have someone telling you what it means and not to look behind the curtain...

You've got a point, GH; the higher criticism (and others) did indeed offer breakpoints for differing authorship in several books; such elements in the Genesis narratives and some others caused quite a stir when first proposed. The author of the first gospel, however, is commonly accepted to be just one individual.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

The issue is Buddy, with the bible quotes I made, whilst you have a different interpretation, there are plenty of people in your country who have the exact interpretation that I gave you.

How do I know this? Well I copied those quotes directly from an American christian fundamentalist web page that advocates them.

...

Truly buddy, would you want a fundamentalist christian group running your government without opposition?

Dear Sparrow,

Full day; two weddings, a dinner, and a reception. A bit much for an old man's constitution. However, my correspondent has some thoughts on the wire, so I'll launch this missive and wrap up.

 

You may not have been aware that fundamentalists numbered only around 61,000 per the last US Census statistical abstract. We have 200,000,000+ adults, 160,000,000 Christians, and you're quoting the least viable, least representative sliver of Christianity. You're quoting people who don't show up once in a thousand. There are probably more people here that think they've been abducted by aliens.

 

There are nuts who take it all too seriously, just as you say. Their mental tendencies have nothing to do with Christianity; they're just irrational for now, and perhaps will outgrow their aberrations eventually. Meanwhile, whatever cause comes along, they'll run with it, be it religious or political or whatever.

 

No, I definitely would not want a fundie group running our government. Do I worry about them taking over the country or the Navy or our nuclear weapons. No, I don't. They can't raise enough votes. They can't grasp the reins of power. They don't function well as leaders of communities or as governmental representatives. They are disastrous at diplomacy or adapting to change. They're like cocker spaniels (fear biters) in the veterinarian's office of life. They're cute, but you don't pat the strange ones and you don't let them run loose.

 

We were discussing a particular passage in Matthew. GH clouded the issue a bit, but there's probably enough said on the thread about it. It's a bit obscured under what my wife calls 'kitchen sink fighting'. That's where the single point is inadequately defensible, so we throw several other issues in the ring to add weight if not clarity. We can continue the counterpoint, or we can move on as you prefer. I do understand that many here have a generalized objection to scripture, some of which is well reasoned and some is not. I grapple with the same stuff, but I'm better doing one issue at a time until resolved instead of the kitchen sink method.

 

Have a great weekend,

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

The issue is Buddy, with the bible quotes I made, whilst you have a different interpretation,

You may not have been aware that fundamentalists numbered only around 61,000 per the last US Census statistical abstract. We have 200,000,000+ adults, 160,000,000 Christians, and you're quoting the least viable, least representative sliver of Christianity. You're quoting people who don't show up once in a thousand. There are probably more people here that think they've been abducted by aliens.

 

There are nuts who take it all too seriously, just as you say. Their mental tendencies have nothing to do with Christianity; they're just irrational for now, and perhaps will outgrow their aberrations eventually. Meanwhile, whatever cause comes along, they'll run with it, be it religious or political or whatever.

 

I have to say as a former fundamentalist, dismissing fundamentalist Christians as nut jobs is a little simple minded...which seems to be your main problem (that is you seem to paint Christian groups you don't agree with in very broad strokes.)

 

I also think your number of 61,000 is VERY conservative...remember poles only show what people CALL themselves. Many people who don't call themselves fundamentalist are pretty fundy. Some call themselves Evangelicals, but there is no difference between the two in any practical way. I have a few litmus test questions I would ask of someone. If, for instance, they are against gay marriage I would pretty much consider them a fundy. If they believe having sex outside of marriage is ALWAYS wrong, they are probably a fundy. If they think this is a Christian nation, they are probably a fundy.

 

I also think you are naive if you think fundies, even as a minority, could not take control of the government. Nazis were a minority in Germany but took control, any minority group that is loud enough and well organized enough could take advantage of the right situation to take control of the government. I'm not saying they will in this country for certain, but it is a possibility we need to consider.

[dano]

Hey Buddy!

Tell us another story about how you changed some one's life for he better by praying with them,

or what God said to you the last time you had a conversation.

 

I'm getting tired of Jewish history and superfluous words meant to impress us, along with the snippets of your daily life that you have enhanced in order to give the impression that you are not as dysfunctional as you appear to be, demonstrated by your compulsion to write about your goofy version of Christianity or whatever it is that you believe.

 

I want to read some of the good stuff like visions of angels, or how God has worked miracles in your life.

 

I want to be entertained!

 

I can get all of the standard Christian apologetics I want just by writing "Christian Apologetics" into my search bar, and a lot of it by people who are so much more educated than you, and can write with so much more clarity, and conciseness, than you.

[Grandpa Harley]

Seems you're scratching... who says there was one author? Based on the differences within texts would indicate numerous authors...

 

My argument is that the texts are such a hotch potch of interpolations, edits, and later glosses that one can't say what was said, let alone meant... unless you have someone telling you what it means and not to look behind the curtain...

You've got a point, GH; the higher criticism (and others) did indeed offer breakpoints for differing authorship in several books; such elements in the Genesis narratives and some others caused quite a stir when first proposed. The author of the first gospel, however, is commonly accepted to be just one individual.

Buddy

 

Yet there are numerous versions of Mark... lines missing and added... some times whole tales. In the end, we have a pretty uncritical acceptance of Papias, and that has never really been questioned until modern times. The dual appearance of the 'feeding of the multitude' is something of a smoking gun for the idea that the author of Mark didn't know what the hell he was writing, or was more than one author writing at different times and later collected and badly edited. Who ever wrote the collection had little or no knowledge of the geography of the region, which is unlikely for a man who was supposed to have walked 'with the lord'...

[dano]

Just to remind you, Dano, I'm not subject to Doctor Webster's rape of English... being British, and all that...

 

 

If i admire your command of the English language, it is because of your facility for seeing bullshit and dealing with it so effectively!