Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[rayskidude]

Re: this whole issue of the positive aspects of the myth >> rather than discuss hypotheticals, because it's certainly hypothetically true that a myth could produce some good effects. But let's deal with reality - which known myth has been shown to produce positive lasting effects on humanity?

 

I can think of "Pay It Forward" >> a noble philosophy, but has there been any good to come from this? Without any concrete examples of a noble myth with a proven track record, then we're just dealing with Hollywoodesque types scenarios.

 

I would entertain the though that Jesus could be a myth - but then I am struck with the Biblical evidence (both OT prophecy and NT fulfillment), the evidence from Church History (admittedly not all good), and from extra-Biblical reports and records about Jesus of Nazareth from ancient sources.

 

But first - I'd like to see the evidence for the Positve Myth, because thus far it's just hypothetical.

[Ouroboros]

Re: the "irreproducible complexity" of Behe >> this certainly has not been discredited, except by those who are philosophically opposed to anything outside of a completely materialistic worldview. There has yet to be any serious proposal about how the DNA/RNA molecules, which are the blueprint of life, to have come into any meaningful existence without the prior presence and functioning of a complex protein/nucleic acid interaction of ribosomal and tRNA biochemical interactions. Even the Miller experiments are no longer seriously cited for evidence for the origin of life - since we now know the proposed ancient atmosphere was different than what Miller used, Miller produced "weird" amino acids in a racemic mix, and there is no explanation for how life would have developed from a racemic mixture of amino acids to use and produce only L-amino acids.

 

[Antlerman]

Re: the "irreproducible complexity" of Behe >> this certainly has not been discredited, except by those who are philosophically opposed to anything outside of a completely materialistic worldview.

Are you seriously suggesting that the vast majority of the world's scientists are all part of some conspiracy to supress this truth because of a common philosophy? Seriously? That's what you have to say to support what you just said. The fact is that there is no single philosophy they all share, and this is the reason why the scientific method was developed in the first place. It was to allow a coming together in understanding facts that existed independently from their individual biases. Are you saying the scientific method doesn't work? That one opinion is a good as the next? You did suggest that when it comes to biblical scholarship, which we'll discuss later.

 

As far as Behe, yes indeed it has be discredited. Its had its peer review by those of wide and ranging biases and it did not measure up to scientific standards. This is not some religious conspiracy, as much as that thought might bring some sense of comfort to those who resist things which may challenge their religious views. Behe was heard in court, and was rejected. Listen about it here from someone who was part of the whole proceedings, explaining exactly how and why his hypothesis of irreducible complexity is scientifically in error (as opposed to philosophically).

 

You may not want to accept this, but that to me shows a weakness in your faith; that your faith can't remain if it doesn't fit your ideas about God. Plenty of religious people accept all this data. Why can't you? Is there some inherent flaw in how you believe that it can't withstand information, unlike their faith? We should focus on that question.

 

There has yet to be any serious proposal about how the DNA/RNA molecules, which are the blueprint of life, to have come into any meaningful existence without the prior presence and functioning of a complex protein/nucleic acid interaction of ribosomal and tRNA biochemical interactions.

And years ago we couldn't explain how bees could fly. That was used as evidence for the miracluous in nature too, just as countless other inexplicable "miracles" of life before it. But as the pattern has gone from the first, what was believed to be the work of gods, has been time and again without fail explained naturally. We know how bees fly now. And we don't hear the religious cite that one anymore.

 

This is the "God of the Gaps" argument. Find a gap in knoweldge, and hold that up to suggest God's handiwork. Once that is explained, move God on to the next gap, and the next gap, and the next gap.

 

Might not it be a better idea to remove God from nature altogether at this point? The gaps keep closing.

 

 

Even the Miller experiments are no longer seriously cited for evidence for the origin of life - since we now know the proposed ancient atmosphere was different than what Miller used, Miller produced "weird" amino acids in a racemic mix, and there is no explanation for how life would have developed from a racemic mixture of amino acids to use and produce only L-amino acids.

So? This is what doing good science is all about! If a hypothesis doesn't hold up, then a newer better model of explanation is worked out until it stands. Behe's didn't stand up either, yet you want to hang on to it! Why? Is that about science, or religious belief?

 

Marcion was declard to be a heretic by orthodox Christainity BECAUSE he was a heretic. Marcion was teaching unBiblical doctrines, its just thst simple. Is it possible that anyone could be a heretic? Or is heresy simply a fanciiful term that has no real significance?

What Biblical doctrines??? There was no Bible back then. It's just that simple.

 

Can you please explain to me why there were so many different beliefs going on all over the place so shortly after the supposed actually events of the narrative Gospel accounts took place in real history? Why there were so many widely varying views and it took church counsels to decide what was orthodox or not?

 

Speaking of models of explanation... to believe that the stories of Mark, for example, were real events, and that Jesus did all these things and taught his disciples these things, why should the evidence show that you have such huge, clearly speculative changes in perspectives about him if this were based on actual events? The argument is made by conservatives that "there wasn't enough time for these things to become myths". But that is exactly what you do see, in the presence of these so-called heresies early on. You do have mythmaking clearly in evidence, not hundreds of years later, but within the first decades.

 

What these really are, are early Christianities. The vastly better model of explanation to account for this is that it was a very simple core set of teachings and philosophies that were molded and adapted to the various regions where it spread to, taking on different layers of myth to support itself in its communities. Not only does it explain far better what we see historically than some miracle explanation (like the flight of bees argument), it has considerably more textual and historical evidence supporting it. It works as a model of explanation much more elegantly and consistently than "God did it".

 

"God did it", may work to some degree on a "faith" level, supporting religious belief, but is misplaced as a explanation for the evidence that has been exposed academically. Again, we're seeing the same sort of faith approach here as you're demonstrating in wanted to believe ideas like Behe's irreducible complexity have some possibility of still being true; that belief in God acting in miraculous ways in the world, whether in the rise of human life on the planet or in the story of Jesus in Mark, has some scientific support. It really doesn't. It really shouldn't try to. It's a god of the gaps problem.

 

Is it wise to build your house on shifting sand, to borrow that phrase from Jesus? Look at how much energy is spent trying to shore up its foundations? Doesn't that say something?

 

Exactly how gravity is mediated is still unknown - some have proposed gravitons (similar to photons) or even a cosmic ether.

Bumble bees flight... therefore this is evidence of God?

 

Of course we see how gravity operates, but we don't know how.

Yet when it comes to explaining it, you accept God designed it and its his property. And this is OK?

 

I just finished a good book, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism - by Greg Beale. I highly recommend his work to anyone seriously interested in this issue.

Not having the time to look at it right now, is this book about the bad things that happen when you challenge a belief? How it's eroding true faith? Or that they are progressing by not clutching their doctrines so tightly its damaging both their faith and their reputations?

[Brother Jeff]

Gravity is JESUS, Antlerman! Check out Colossians 1:17 -

 

He (Jesus) is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

God has revealed in His Word that before anything at all existed, there was an Invisible Man named JESUS living in Nowhere and that not only did He magically create everything with a powerful magical spell (Gen. 1:1), He is also magically holding everything together. See, the Bible has the answer! Glory!

[Ouroboros]

Gravity is JESUS, Antlerman! Check out Colossians 1:17 -

 

He (Jesus) is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

One of my older brothers suggested that once, and he was serious.

[Brother Jeff]

Gravity is JESUS, Antlerman! Check out Colossians 1:17 -

 

He (Jesus) is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

One of my older brothers suggested that once, and he was serious.

[Neon Genesis]

It's so good to back in the USA - travelling has it's adventures, but there's no doubt that being in the USA presents what's best on this planet.

I wish Christians would make up their minds on whether or not the U.S. is damned from slowly degenerating to the horrific evils of godless post-modernism or if it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

I would also add that seking the conversion of others to Christianity MUST BE the primary motivation for Christian missions - for any temporal motivation to be our primary motive would be the height of hypocrisy on our part.

If Yahweh exists and he cares so much about what we believe or don't believe, why doesn't he come down here and do it himself instead of getting his lackeys do all the dirty work for him?

 

Re: the "irreproducible complexity" of Behe >> this certainly has not been discredited, except by those who are philosophically opposed to anything outside of a completely materialistic worldview.

Yeah, we'll just pretend that judge John E Jones III wasn't a conversative Christian himself. If the universe is so complex that it had to have been created by God, then surely wouldn't God be just as complex as his creation? If complexity can't exist without being created yet God is complex himself, then who created God? If God can exist without being created, why can't the universe? Let's presume for a minute here that it was somehow proven evolution was false. How does disproving evolution somehow magically prove the existence of God when they're both two entirely separate ideas? And if evolution is false, how do you explain how all the species came into existence by saying "Goddidit?" I can just imagine creationism being taught in science now. All you'd have to do to pass any science test is just write down 'Goddidit" for every single question. Let's forget about trying to find out how things work. Let's just chalk it all up to God. Hey, I have an idea! Why do we even need science classes at all? We won't try to figure out how to build technology or how to heal sicknesses with medicine and doctors. We'll never have to go to another doctor again. We'll just say our magic spell/prayer and God will sprout a computer up into existence for us and we won't have to figure out how germ theory of disease works. After all, it's just a "theory" and all we have to do is say God must have made people sick as a punishment for our sins. We'll never go to the doctor ever again. We'll just pray to God to heal us and forgive our sins and poof, amputees will magically be regrown. Now won't that be wonderful? Praise the Lard!

 

 

 

Exactly how gravity is mediated is still unknown - some have proposed gravitons (similar to photons) or even a cosmic ether. Of course we see how gravity operates, but we don't know how. And we also don't know its nature. Light is EM radiation with both a wave and particle component - what is gravity's nature? We don't know; maybe String Theory will answer that question - but it's still an unanswered question.

Let me guess. It must have been "intelligent" falling that does it, right?

[Kuroikaze]

It's so good to back in the USA - travelling has it's adventures, but there's no doubt that being in the USA presents what's best on this planet.

 

I usually don't bother to respond to anything you say...but this is just too stupid to ignore.

 

As one who just spent the last seven months living in Japan, I declare this statement to be gratuitously ethnocentric bull shit. You spend a couple of weeks in and think you know everything about those "godless heathens" who live in other countries?

 

This kinda statement is exactly why so many people from other countries think people from the U.S. are such ass-hats. STOP RUINING OUR REPUTATION.

[Antlerman]

Gravity is JESUS, Antlerman! Check out Colossians 1:17 -

 

He (Jesus) is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

God has revealed in His Word that before anything at all existed, there was an Invisible Man named JESUS living in Nowhere and that not only did He magically create everything with a powerful magical spell (Gen. 1:1), He is also magically holding everything together. See, the Bible has the answer! Glory!

Well actually, this does make a point. The Biblical myth makers loosely tie matters of the unknown into the mythology, such as taking the Christ figure and attaching him to Creation and nature itself as they imagined it,

"He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power" Heb 1:3,

Now to the modern-day literalist who finds themselves confronted with actual knowledge about nature can try to take this as scientific data, that gravity and all the forces of physics which function in this universe are actually features controlled by this cosmic Christ, or they could choose to see it as something that is not to be taken literally and instead understand it as an expression of people of the time to make a point about something NOT concerned about matters of physics!

 

But the literalist forces himself into a corner to make this fit his idea of how the Bible should be approached. But back to models of explanation, this is problematic if taken as true in regards to physics. But as an expression of mythology it makes sense. Scientific accuracy is not the point. Promotion of the Christ figure into an epic history going all the way back to Creation itself is. What was the understanding of the audience. But, of course once you say God wrote it (and believe that literally instead of as an expressive figure of speech) then you have a problem.

[Antlerman]

Re: this whole issue of the positive aspects of the myth >> rather than discuss hypotheticals, because it's certainly hypothetically true that a myth could produce some good effects. But let's deal with reality - which known myth has been shown to produce positive lasting effects on humanity?

 

I can think of "Pay It Forward" >> a noble philosophy, but has there been any good to come from this? Without any concrete examples of a noble myth with a proven track record, then we're just dealing with Hollywoodesque types scenarios.

 

I would entertain the though that Jesus could be a myth - but then I am struck with the Biblical evidence (both OT prophecy and NT fulfillment), the evidence from Church History (admittedly not all good), and from extra-Biblical reports and records about Jesus of Nazareth from ancient sources.

 

But first - I'd like to see the evidence for the Positve Myth, because thus far it's just hypothetical.

I missed this post earlier when I responded.

 

It might help to define mythology for you. Christianity actually is a mythology. Not because its "false" or any such trite thing as that, but because of how it functions as a system of cultural symbols.

 

This all has to do with the understanding of the roles and functions of mythology studied since the early days of the Enlightenment where looking at the stories of other cultures were seen as quaint and primitive, all the way through shifts in understanding the mythology with more and more data collected and considered, to the later phase where ethnographers understand it as much more than mere fairy tales or folklore. It reveals a "logic" of a society in symbolic form. There are plenty of mythologies in operation every single day in our culture that have nothing to do with supernatural figures, such as the Christ, but in fact are just that, a symbolic system expressing the logic of a society. The American Dream, is one such example.

 

Christianity functions this way. Its stories, its icons, its sayings, all represent in single expressions mountains of data. Take the word Christ for example. Vast amounts of information are contained in it. In fact I'd make arguments that the mythology is so pervasive, it touches into some very key foundational understandings we assume as true. That's the level of a myth's power.

 

So you ask what mythology has produced some long-lasting positive effects for humanity? You should hope, as a Christian, to say Christianity is one!

 

Myth's really are not about true or false, but about appropriateness for the context, or rather its "adequacy" to do what they are designed for. Society creates them to support themselves, their values, their ideals, the goals, their ambitions, their social visions; imbuing all of the logic of them into the symbolic form. That's how it works. The American myth, the Lone Ranger, Jesus Christ, etc.

 

Was Jesus a real person? I believe so. But he was made into the Christ through the process of mythmaking. It's the symbol of the Christ, Jesus the Christ that is really the issue in talking about Christianity. It's about talking about the value the symbols have to offer. So honestly, to hear you arguing for authority through proofs.... you have to understand how completely outside the scope of meaning that is.

 

I would really enjoy further discussions with you on this. You seem a sincere and intelligent person willing to consider others thoughts and insights.

[Neon Genesis]

Myth's really are not about true or false, but about appropriateness for the context, or rather its "adequacy" to do what they are designed for. Society creates them to support themselves, their values, their ideals, the goals, their ambitions, their social visions; imbuing all of the logic of them into the symbolic form. That's how it works. The American myth, the Lone Ranger, Jesus Christ, etc.

While I more or less agree with you, I still have to wonder why is it that society treats Christianity different than it does other myths that we no longer see value in? For example, in the case of Greek mythology, most people today wouldn't say that they have a symbolic belief in Mt Olympus. Most people today agree that Greek mythology is obviously false. Or even comparing Christianity to modern day religions like Scientology, most people wouldn't try to argue that the belief in galactic beings planting aliens in their souls is merely symbolic for the Church Of Scientology and that it doesn't matter to their believers whether or not it's true that Xenu visited Earth millions of years ago. Yet why is it that those same people treat the Christian myth differently than they do Greek mythology or Scientology? What is it about the Christian myth that keeps bringing people back to it over other myths and religions that aren't all that different yet even most fundies would find absurd?

 

Why do most people try to find meaning in symbolic meanings in mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam yet they don't for more fringe groups like Raelism? What gives one religion more symbolic value to a group of followers than the other when to the outsiders of all religion, sometimes it all seems the same? What I mean is why is it that even Christians who will accept their own religion as being symbolic metaphors don't use the same approach to something like Scientology and even most liberal Christians who might say there is more than one path to God or something like that will scoff at the silliness of some of the stranger religions yet to most skeptics it's all the same to them? And I'm just wondering what is the symbolic meaning behind Judges 11:29-40? I agree that you don't have to see the scriptures literally to find value in them. I'm just trying to understand why is it that Christians treat their myth differently than other myths if mythology is about symbolism? And while I don't agree with all of Dawkins points in The God Delusion, I still find this one point that he brought up in his chapter about NOMA that I still think is a good question to raise awareness to. If it was somehow proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, how many Christians would say that it doesn't matter whether or not God exists because religion isn't about what's true or false? Given the likelihood that the majority of Christians would gladly accept this proof of God's existence instead of just ignoring it, is NOMA something Christians truly believe in or is it just something that they only use because there's no evidence in their favor?

[Antlerman]

Myth's really are not about true or false, but about appropriateness for the context, or rather its "adequacy" to do what they are designed for. Society creates them to support themselves, their values, their ideals, the goals, their ambitions, their social visions; imbuing all of the logic of them into the symbolic form. That's how it works. The American myth, the Lone Ranger, Jesus Christ, etc.

While I more or less agree with you, I still have to wonder why is it that society treats Christianity different than it does other myths that we no longer see value in? For example, in the case of Greek mythology, most people today wouldn't say that they have a symbolic belief in Mt Olympus. Most people today agree that Greek mythology is obviously false.

The simple answer is that the Greek gods aren't part of our social vocabulary. Christianity's are. Why society treats Christianity different than other myths is because it's our mythology. It's easy enough to look at a foreign culture as an outsider, analyze and critique their myths, etc, but when it comes to objectively evaluating our own foundations of how we perceive truth and reality, well... that's different, isn't it? We understand the truth, whereas they are just unenlightened primitives, aren't they?

 

Indeed.

 

Or even comparing Christianity to modern day religions like Scientology, most people wouldn't try to argue that the belief in galactic beings planting aliens in their souls is merely symbolic for the Church Of Scientology and that it doesn't matter to their believers whether or not it's true that Xenu visited Earth millions of years ago.

There are always fringe elements in societies. Mythmaking is part of social experimentation. The Scientology cult are experimenters. It's all about trying new things. In fact that is how Christianity came to be. The surviving experiments are the ones that caught on. The reason it isn't main stream is because it isn't adequete enough to support the core sentiments of society. The various forms of the Jesus movements, including Christianity, caught on in its world at that time because it had the right sort of mix of message for that society. All the various iterations of it, including the Christ cults, were variations on a theme. Scientology seems a more limited phenomenon.

 

Yet why is it that those same people treat the Christian myth differently than they do Greek mythology or Scientology? What is it about the Christian myth that keeps bringing people back to it over other myths and religions that aren't all that different yet even most fundies would find absurd?

Probably because its the native myth language of our culture. It's symbols and the framing of our basic worldviews are tied into it. It's a background myth that lays there mostly unnoticed.

 

Why do most people try to find meaning in symbolic meanings in mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam yet they don't for more fringe groups like Raelism?

Again, they don't relate to its symbolic messages. Something important to the pot culture, is meaningless to someone oriented towards wealth and success. The symbol sets are different. One a pot leaf, the other a stack of dollar bills. The Raelians would probably appeal to more your UFO crowd, not mom and pop from the rural Midwest.

 

What gives one religion more symbolic value to a group of followers than the other when to the outsiders of all religion, sometimes it all seems the same?

Again, familiarity. Native language.

 

What I mean is why is it that even Christians who will accept their own religion as being symbolic metaphors don't use the same approach to something like Scientology and even most liberal Christians who might say there is more than one path to God or something like that will scoff at the silliness of some of the stranger religions yet to most skeptics it's all the same to them?

Because its symbols don't speak to them culturally. They're scoffing at the myth, because it reflects a culture that they find bizarre. In both cases ironically, they are each using the myth to speak about themselves. Doesn't that say something about how we operate?

 

And I'm just wondering what is the symbolic meaning behind Judges 11:29-40?

If you lived back then in that culture it would have had meaning. To us... it's even more foreign than the Raeliens.

 

And while I don't agree with all of Dawkins points in The God Delusion, I still find this one point that he brought up in his chapter about NOMA that I still think is a good question to raise awareness to. If it was somehow proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, how many Christians would say that it doesn't matter whether or not God exists because religion isn't about what's true or false? Given the likelihood that the majority of Christians would gladly accept this proof of God's existence instead of just ignoring it, is NOMA something Christians truly believe in or is it just something that they only use because there's no evidence in their favor?

I'm not that familiar with NOMA so I might misspeak here. From what I gather it's a concept of Stephen Gould that religion and science occupy two separate domains, one of empirical research, and the other the domain of meaning and value. Dawkins is a critic of this on the grounds that religion can't live without crossing into the domain of science. In that context Christians would be happy to accept evidence of God. This would bear some support from what I'm seeing Rayskidude doing in this same discussion thread here, trying to find empirical evidence to validate his faith to us in his eyes.

 

I'm not sure I would agree with Gould here either, and I'm not too keen on going too far on Dawkins' take on it. I think the problem is far more complex than this. I think the problem is really more limited to our Western culture, than religion as a whole. I think this comes back to what I said earlier about background mythology. Our Enlightenment really starts from Christian ideas, exploring the world outward from that basic assumption; examining it and critiquing it, but still working outward from it.

 

We are not some Tabula Rasa culture. We do not question the world through a vacuum. We question the world through certain basic assumptions, certain points of view. It's those assumptions or points of view which I do not accept as some sort of universal truth or reality, but rather a programmed outlook inherited through the language of our culture through signs and symbols. The difficulty we have between religion and science is our problem, not some inherent human problem. I'm not willing to view this as a case of good versus evil, right versus wrong, or true versus false.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm not that familiar with NOMA so I might misspeak here. From what I gather it's a concept of Stephen Gould that religion and science occupy two separate domains, one of empirical research, and the other the domain of meaning and value. Dawkins is a critic of this on the grounds that religion can't live without crossing into the domain of science. In that context Christians would be happy to accept evidence of God. This would bear some support from what I'm seeing Rayskidude doing in this same discussion thread here, trying to find empirical evidence to validate his faith to us in his eyes.

 

I'm not sure I would agree with Gould here either, and I'm not too keen on going too far on Dawkins' take on it. I think the problem is far more complex than this. I think the problem is really more limited to our Western culture, than religion as a whole. I think this comes back to what I said earlier about background mythology. Our Enlightenment really starts from Christian ideas, exploring the world outward from that basic assumption; examining it and critiquing it, but still working outward from it.

Yeah, that's basically what NOMA is which is short for Non-Overlapping Magisteria. The basic idea behind it is that religion lies outside the realms of science and religion deals with why questions while science deals with what questions. Galileo summed this up with his famous saying that the bible teaches men how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go. I think it all depends on a case by case basis and how broadly people define religion. I think there are some instances when religion and science obviously do clash and to say that the two absolutely never overlap is foolish. But I think Galileo is a case where NOMA failed and religion clashed with science. Religion said that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around the Earth since Joshua was able to stop the sun in the sky. But science said it was the other way around that the Earth revolved around the sun. And this caused a conflict between Galileo and the Catholic church who didn't apologize for their treatment of him and admit they were wrong until the 90s. At the same time the current pope hypocritically claims they accept all science but they cherry pick reality when it's convenient for them. Like they'll subscribe to NOMA when it comes to theistic evolution and their symbolic interpretation of the Genesis myth but will accept the virgin birth as literal fact and add in extra-biblical supernatural stories about the Virgin Mary. On the other hand, some people like Bishop Spong and pantheists define God so broadly that their beliefs will always lie outside science. Interestingly, Dawkins references Bishop Spong later in The God Delusion as an example of a Christian who's beliefs are so advanced that they would be unrecognizable to the masses and quotes a line from one of Spong's books where Spong says anyone who thinks the bible is the word of God has obviously never read it.

[Guest StaunchAgnostic]

I dont think its as complicated as people are trying to make it when a religion goes around and tells people that things change in reality if they just beg an imaginary friend hard enough(crossing science with religion, de-educating the masses). Or when that religion has passages that haven't been omitted for thousands of years, and if someone listens to those passages they could feel more justified in killing or hating someone. I know hate isn't directly hurtful, but sometimes a few angry words is all it takes to get the ball rolling in a community that someday lynches someone just because everyone agree's they dont like someone.

 

This is right vs wrong in that sense. I know we have a lot to thank the influences of the past for, without them our culture could be vastly different than it is now. This doesn't mean we have to thank or forgive the people who have stuck with the origin of that cultures religious base.

 

I get the feeling like we're being asked to tip-toe around religious people because they've given something to the society we now live in. I'm not a fan of reimbursing someone simply because their great grand parents(and further) went ahead and held together a solid enough of a community that lead to my birth. Someone's culture would've been there to do that, no matter what. I will happily push for a more critically thinking culture from here on, and i hope that people in the future will see, respect, and adopt it (not that i expect them to).

 

I understand that flavors will exist in our culture, memes will live and die, the paradigm will always be moving. I like that we have the ability to communicate with each other, and i use that tool quite often. I will not bend over backwards and let someone poison the society with false ideals and lies simply because they are still part of an organization that helped carry on our current ethical values

[Antlerman]

I dont think its as complicated as people are trying to make it when a religion goes around and tells people that things change in reality if they just beg an imaginary friend hard enough(crossing science with religion, de-educating the masses).

To my awareness no one is suggesting we not challenge teachings or ideas which are inconsistent with what is deemed in the best interest of the individual or society. I'm all for confronting bad ideas, but with an understanding that allows for real communication to happen. Us understanding the nature of these systems is key to that, IMO. It's really not too complicated, more just unfamiliar.

 

Or when that religion has passages that haven't been omitted for thousands of years, and if someone listens to those passages they could feel more justified in killing or hating someone.

My argument would be that in both cases of seeking support for good and bad ideas, people will run to what avails itself to point to as giving credence to their views. The South ran to the Bible to support slavery. The North ran to the Bible to speak against it. It's my contention that the social desire doesn't begin with external texts such as the Bible, but with the society itself. And as such I don't believe getting rid of the text will change anything, any more than getting rid of stones will stop murder. An anti-stone movement is wasted energy better spent addressing the reasons why people pick them up, if ending murder is one's hope.

 

I know hate isn't directly hurtful, but sometimes a few angry words is all it takes to get the ball rolling in a community that someday lynches someone just because everyone agree's they dont like someone.

I agree with this, but the desire to find angry words begins with the person seeking to find support for their anger. I believed in the "inspiration" of the Bible at one time, yet never did it change my personality to be a hater. Instead, I read it to support what my ideals were. My point is you can never rid the world of all the available excuses people run to to justify bad behavior. To try that is misdirecting energy.

 

This is right vs wrong in that sense. I know we have a lot to thank the influences of the past for, without them our culture could be vastly different than it is now. This doesn't mean we have to thank or forgive the people who have stuck with the origin of that cultures religious base.

Right and wrong in the sense of acceptable and unacceptable to society. Again, there nothing in what I've be suggesting that in anyway means we should just keep quite out of some misguided sense of duty to pay honor to those who came before us. I don't believe that, nor would ever suggest that. That likewise ends in ineffectiveness. That's being a pacifist, which is something I don't support.

 

I get the feeling like we're being asked to tip-toe around religious people because they've given something to the society we now live in.

I would argue that you should confront it, but in effect ways that come through understanding exactly what the nature of the problem is and how best to communicate through to it. That doesn't happen through passive-aggressiveness, where people put up with something they don't agree with for so long they suddenly attack it aggressively in response. Though that may give the aggressor in that case a sense of power by "speaking up", it's not effective communication to solve the problem. It becomes part of the problem, IMO. That's more about their emotions of outrage at that point. It's the lines drawn for war.

 

What I support is effective communication that works in moving people closer together in their understandings of where they are coming from. It's my belief that the majority of people are actually much more alike in our desires and hope than we are at odds with each other, despite their uses of religious mythology or secular mythologies. Our goals are similar for the most part, setting extreme examples from the edges aside.

 

I'm not a fan of reimbursing someone simply because their great grand parents(and further) went ahead and held together a solid enough of a community that lead to my birth. Someone's culture would've been there to do that, no matter what.

I agree. And you're right, someone's culture would have done that no matter what. Behind all the languages we create to support our cultures, are people creating them. Doesn't matter what the culture is, or the language. It's all the same at the end. Imperfect fictions used to support societies, held together to support its ideas for itself.

 

I will happily push for a more critically thinking culture from here on, and i hope that people in the future will see, respect, and adopt it (not that i expect them to).

Not to throw a wrench into this I idea I support with critical thinking, but is it possible that we value this as much as we do because it's something important to the immediate needs of society as we see it, at this time? And that at some point in the future, it could actually be considered less than desirable? Something that that future world would look back on us as "quaint primitives"? Isn't that sort of how we look backwards at those whose tools for their society seem misplaced to us?

 

I understand that flavors will exist in our culture, memes will live and die, the paradigm will always be moving. I like that we have the ability to communicate with each other, and i use that tool quite often. I will not bend over backwards and let someone poison the society with false ideals and lies simply because they are still part of an organization that helped carry on our current ethical values

Neither will I. Challenge away, but it's good to ask ourselves what we are hoping to accomplish in that challenge and if how we're going about it is the best means to that end.

[Guest humbletom]

I have just one question for Christians to answer. Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?

This is probably because most Christians today do not see many miracles with their eyes or experience the ecstasy that can only come from God. You will not find these in many churches. When you encounter it, though, you can not walk out the same.

[rayskidude]

It's so good to back in the USA - travelling has it's adventures, but there's no doubt that being in the USA presents what's best on this planet.

 

I usually don't bother to respond to anything you say...but this is just too stupid to ignore.

 

As one who just spent the last seven months living in Japan, I declare this statement to be gratuitously ethnocentric bull shit. You spend a couple of weeks in and think you know everything about those "godless heathens" who live in other countries?

 

This kinda statement is exactly why so many people from other countries think people from the U.S. are such ass-hats. STOP RUINING OUR REPUTATION.

 

Wow, I'm the Ugly American! Who'da thunk it?

 

But I lived in northern Iraq for 6 months (Nov'07 thru Apr '08), and in the past 10 years I have spent about 30 weeks in Armenia, 4 weeks in Kenya, 6 weeks in Germany, 2 weeks in Kazakhstan, 2 weeks in India, 15 weeks in the Czech Republic, 4 weeks in Romania, 3 weeks in Israel, and 6 weeks in the Philippines. Suffice to say, I've done some travelling and living in foreign countries - and in my opinion, from what I have seen personally - and also from the intense desire that so many people all over this planet have to emigrate to the USA - I stand by my statement!

 

Many places on Earth are picturesque, adventurous, with amazing people >> but to live year 'round, I don't think any place beats the USA.

 

Also, could you please inform us all of the suicide rate among the 15-25 yr olds in Japan. I recently spoke with a guy who has lived in Korea for 15 years, and he and works all throughout the Far East - he indicated the youth suicide rate in Japan was very high. SO what is the youth suicide rate in Japan?

[rayskidude]

Re: this whole issue of the positive aspects of the myth >> rather than discuss hypotheticals, because it's certainly hypothetically true that a myth could produce some good effects. But let's deal with reality - which known myth has been shown to produce positive lasting effects on humanity?

 

I can think of "Pay It Forward" >> a noble philosophy, but has there been any good to come from this? Without any concrete examples of a noble myth with a proven track record, then we're just dealing with Hollywoodesque types scenarios.

 

I would entertain the though that Jesus could be a myth - but then I am struck with the Biblical evidence (both OT prophecy and NT fulfillment), the evidence from Church History (admittedly not all good), and from extra-Biblical reports and records about Jesus of Nazareth from ancient sources.

 

But first - I'd like to see the evidence for the Positve Myth, because thus far it's just hypothetical.

I missed this post earlier when I responded.

 

It might help to define mythology for you. Christianity actually is a mythology. Not because its "false" or any such trite thing as that, but because of how it functions as a system of cultural symbols.

 

This all has to do with the understanding of the roles and functions of mythology studied since the early days of the Enlightenment where looking at the stories of other cultures were seen as quaint and primitive, all the way through shifts in understanding the mythology with more and more data collected and considered, to the later phase where ethnographers understand it as much more than mere fairy tales or folklore. It reveals a "logic" of a society in symbolic form. There are plenty of mythologies in operation every single day in our culture that have nothing to do with supernatural figures, such as the Christ, but in fact are just that, a symbolic system expressing the logic of a society. The American Dream, is one such example.

 

Christianity functions this way. Its stories, its icons, its sayings, all represent in single expressions mountains of data. Take the word Christ for example. Vast amounts of information are contained in it. In fact I'd make arguments that the mythology is so pervasive, it touches into some very key foundational understandings we assume as true. That's the level of a myth's power.

 

So you ask what mythology has produced some long-lasting positive effects for humanity? You should hope, as a Christian, to say Christianity is one!

 

Myth's really are not about true or false, but about appropriateness for the context, or rather its "adequacy" to do what they are designed for. Society creates them to support themselves, their values, their ideals, the goals, their ambitions, their social visions; imbuing all of the logic of them into the symbolic form. That's how it works. The American myth, the Lone Ranger, Jesus Christ, etc.

 

Was Jesus a real person? I believe so. But he was made into the Christ through the process of mythmaking. It's the symbol of the Christ, Jesus the Christ that is really the issue in talking about Christianity. It's about talking about the value the symbols have to offer. So honestly, to hear you arguing for authority through proofs.... you have to understand how completely outside the scope of meaning that is.

 

I would really enjoy further discussions with you on this. You seem a sincere and intelligent person willing to consider others thoughts and insights.

 

According to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary; myth = traditional story of unknown authorship, ostensibly with a historical basis, but serving to explain some phenomenon of nature, or the origin of man, or customs, institutions, religious rites, - AND any fictitious story or unscientific account , theory, belief - AND any imaginary thing or person of spoken of as existing; AND mythology = a telling of tales or legends. AND in Webster's New Thesaurus, the related words are saga, fable, fabrication, fiction, figment, etc.

 

So in normal human discourse, we understand that myths and mythology relate to stories widely known to be false (Santa Claus), but yet they serve a purpose in that they teach a didactic lesson (George Washington and the apple tree), or stir up national/regional pride (Paul Bunyan & Babe, the Big Blue Ox), or present symbolism to inspire people to live in righteosness and justice (pick any Marvel or DC comic hero). But the common understanding is that the myth is a fable, a fabrication, fictitious.

 

So allow me to repeat my question: Outside of Christianity (which I do not believe to be myth, but rather true historical accounts of actual people and events - but I'll allow for the sake of argument) what other myth has produced multiple, proven, long-term positive results for myriads of people? And The American Dream is not a myth - that's an example of a goal. The Lone Ranger would be an example of a myth - but I am unaware that he has had a lasting positive impact on human society.

 

So, please give me an example, so we can deal in realities and not hypotheticals.

 

Thnx

[bdp]

"what other myth has produced multiple, proven, long-term positive results for myriads of people?"

 

I'd like to see you prove this assertion.

 

Oh, and by the way, Mormonism.

[Kuroikaze]

But I lived in northern Iraq for 6 months (Nov'07 thru Apr '08), and in the past 10 years I have spent about 30 weeks in Armenia, 4 weeks in Kenya, 6 weeks in Germany, 2 weeks in Kazakhstan, 2 weeks in India, 15 weeks in the Czech Republic, 4 weeks in Romania, 3 weeks in Israel, and 6 weeks in the Philippines. Suffice to say, I've done some travelling and living in foreign countries - and in my opinion, from what I have seen personally - and also from the intense desire that so many people all over this planet have to emigrate to the USA - I stand by my statement!

 

*shrug* find stand by it. Though you might note that with the exception of Germany, the countries you have traveled too are generally rather poor and kinda third worldish. Not every country outside the U.S. is either poor or war torn, so you're sample set may be a bit skewed.

 

Many places on Earth are picturesque, adventurous, with amazing people >> but to live year 'round, I don't think any place beats the USA.

 

Having done a bit of traveling myself, I find that the the Americans who really annoy foreigners are the ones who haven't a clue that they are doing it. They talk loud, cause problems, demand things to work the same way as they do "back home." Its a different freaking country, they don't have to do things our way, and if we don't like it tough cookies.

 

Of course YOU think the USA is the best place to live...that's because YOU live there. It ain't because the U.S.A. is objectively better, but because it is familiar to you. I bet lots of people in those countries think that theirs is better than ours too.

 

Think about these two sentences.

"The U.S. is the best place to live."

"The U.S. is the best place for me to live."

Do you understand the difference between the two...and why the 2nd one is reasonable and the first one makes the person who says it look like a jack-ass?

 

 

Also, could you please inform us all of the suicide rate among the 15-25 yr olds in Japan. I recently spoke with a guy who has lived in Korea for 15 years, and he and works all throughout the Far East - he indicated the youth suicide rate in Japan was very high. SO what is the youth suicide rate in Japan?

 

First off, thought the suicide rate in Japan is one of the higher in the world. The age group that is most at risk is actually over 40, not teenagers. This makes sense if you know a bit about the culture. Japan has been working on solving this problem for the last several years. That being said, I didn't find Japan any more depressing than the states. Having lived there I saw two main things that may be contributing to this, one is that it rains there a lot, and getting too little sun can actually cause depression. The second is that most Japanese are reluctant to take drugs, so many of them may be reluctant to take medicine for mental illness.

 

Second, if you want to compare statistics, then you should also compare the rate of violent crime, which is, I believe, less than 20% of the rate here. OR perhaps the fact that Japan has a nationalized health care system, and still manages to have lower taxes than we do. Perhaps we could compare our countries record with environmental policy and see where we stand in comparison to Japan. How about educational standards?

 

The point here is not to claim that Japan is superior to America...the point is that such comparisons are stupid.

[Badger]

Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?

Personally, I don't think the Bible must be absolutely infallible; I don't assume it is. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which is formulated by more than 200 evangelical leaders, is, however, interesting. It states that "Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed," and then, "Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored."

[Ouroboros]

Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?

Personally, I don't think the Bible must be absolutely infallible; I don't assume it is. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which is formulated by more than 200 evangelical leaders, is, however, interesting. It states that "Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed," and then, "Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored."

So what claims does it make good, and what does it achieve? What truth was it the authors aimed at?

[Antlerman]

According to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary; myth = traditional story of unknown authorship, ostensibly with a historical basis, but serving to explain some phenomenon of nature, or the origin of man, or customs, institutions, religious rites, - AND any fictitious story or unscientific account , theory, belief - AND any imaginary thing or person of spoken of as existing; AND mythology = a telling of tales or legends. AND in Webster's New Thesaurus, the related words are saga, fable, fabrication, fiction, figment, etc.

 

So in normal human discourse, we understand that myths and mythology relate to stories widely known to be false (Santa Claus), but yet they serve a purpose in that they teach a didactic lesson (George Washington and the apple tree), or stir up national/regional pride (Paul Bunyan & Babe, the Big Blue Ox), or present symbolism to inspire people to live in righteosness and justice (pick any Marvel or DC comic hero). But the common understanding is that the myth is a fable, a fabrication, fictitious.

I'm not using it in the colloquial sense, which I believe to create huge misnomers as to what it really is. "False" is not a word I use in regard to myth. They are true on a different level. They are not about the facts of history and science, and to place them in that context to judge them is inappropriate, especially from the religious point of view. I'm using myth in the academic sense:

 

The term ‘mythology’ is used to denote either the study of myths or, loosely, myths themselves. Myths are traditional tales, and they have become so because they possess some significance or enduring quality. When stories of this general kind are based on some great historical or purportedly historical event (the Siege of Troy, the Return of the Children of Heracles) they are often described as saga. On the other hand, when they are short narratives which are fictional but attached to a real person or place and given a fairly realistic setting, as for example the stories of the early kings of Rome, they may be termed legends. Myths of these two kinds constituted all the Greeks knew of their early history, and pervaded all aspects of Greek life. A third variety of myth is folk-tales, simple narratives of adventure, often containing elements of ingenious trickery and of magic, perhaps involving superhuman creatures, e.g. monsters and giants; they are characterized by recurring features of character and plot, lost sons seeking their rightful inheritance, princes slaying monsters to win princesses; the stories of Perseus contain many such. Myth can include any of the features of saga, legend, or folktale, but its particular characteristic is that it is a serious story about the gods (and in Greece about heroes too) and their relations with one another and with men and women.

 

There is no touchstone to enable one kind of myth to be clearly distinguished from another, nor can the characteristics of myth be isolated: the same elements may occur in all types, and a given narrative may be categorized differently by different critics.

There are myths which explain the origin of the earth, natural phenomena, human (and animal) behaviour, religious practices (see MYSTERIES, concerning the myth of Demeter and Persephonē), and human institutions in general. Another feature of mythical narrative is its fluidity, admitting of endless variations on its general storyline (see HELEN). But Greek myths in general, as we meet them in poetry from Homer to Attic tragedy and beyond, are stories of some complexity and subtlety, and they are the form in which the poets choose to express their ideas.

A striking thing about Greek myth is the importance attached to it by the Greeks up to the end of the fifth century. But in the course of that century, the medium for serious thought came to be prose. Out of the mythical genealogies of gods and heroes arose the concept of history (see HISTORIOGRAPHY 1); similarly, the cosmological myths shaped the speculations that led eventually to the rise of science and philosophy (see PHILOSOPHY 1). Both history and philosophy were written in prose. Myth continued to be of significance in poetry and art as long as it was of religious importance for cult and ritual, but as Greece moved into the Hellenistic age it became more of a decorative element and less intellectually and emotionally charged.

 

It is noteworthy that many of the principal Greek myths are connected with Mycenaean centres, e.g. the stories of Perseus and Atreus with Mycenae itself, that of Oedipus with Thebes, that of Heracles with Thebes and Tiryns, a fact which suggests that the stories are of great antiquity. The sources of our knowledge of Greek myths are in the first place Homer and Hesiod, then the classical Greek poets, in particular Pindar and the dramatists. Further material is provided by the Hellenistic poets, notably Callimachus, and by compilers such as Diodorus Siculus and the author of the Bibliothēkē attributed to Apollodorus; also by the Roman poets, especially Ovid. Finally the scholiasts, in their commentaries on the classical authors, frequently furnish mythological information. Naturally the stories drawn from these various sources do not always agree, local traditions and the fancies of the narrators being freely incorporated.

 

Roman and Italian myths which antedate contact with Greek literature can hardly be said to exist. That of Romulus is the best-known (see also CACUS). The old Italian gods are vague personalities, and barely anthropomorphic; they are not actuated by human motives, they do not marry or fight or have love affairs with mortals. The myths that the Roman poets and antiquarians attached to them were borrowed from Greece (e.g. by the process of identifying Roman deities with Greek), or invented, largely under Greek influence. Such native Italian traditions as there were have been lost or, where they survive, lack imaginative richness: imagination comes into play only to explain some old custom, ritual, or name.

Yes, Christianity is mythology. Categorically this is how it functions and how it emerged. Miracle stories are a clear feature of mythology which served a purpose in the minds of the creators of the myth. They are symbolic. To take these features and argue them as fact, misses the point of them entirely! It rips them out of context and uses them for a different purpose. And in the case of the literalist, that purpose is to attempt to create a myth of their own of the stories, one which ties religious faith into the world of rational sciences. A huge disservice to both science and religious faith, IMO.

 

So allow me to repeat my question: Outside of Christianity (which I do not believe to be myth, but rather true historical accounts of actual people and events - but I'll allow for the sake of argument) what other myth has produced multiple, proven, long-term positive results for myriads of people? And The American Dream is not a myth - that's an example of a goal. The Lone Ranger would be an example of a myth - but I am unaware that he has had a lasting positive impact on human society.

 

So, please give me an example, so we can deal in realities and not hypotheticals.

 

Thnx

Allow me to direct you to a long debate of mine on exactly this point: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=20121 My opening post begins in post number 3 which Nivek embedded in his. The discussion was "What Does Christianity Offer Humanity In This Life That No, other religion or philosophy can?" The discussion was with a sincere, intelligent Evangelical Christian woman whose faith in her beliefs was quite strong. In the end she conceded the point with this genuine admission:

Life makes unexpected twists when you least expect it to. When one is willing to learn, it is surprising what can be found. The question was "What does Christianity offer humanity in this life that no other religion does?" and I was ready to fight tooth and nail to prove how much I knew. But, really, my experience is limited in this area and I didn't want to admit it. I haven't spoken to enough people from other faiths... I've just studied their faiths and have one particular person that I talk to from a few of these faiths. That's not enough to make a determination about what fruits they bare. I can say this, however; each person, I have met, shows an amazing desire to be good and kind and loving to others; to be a blessing and not judge.

No matter what excuse I might try to make to see them as an "exception to the rule", the fact is that it shows fruits sprung from people who belong in other systems of belief.

 

<snip>

 

Romans 2:14&15 has really come to life for me in this discussion. Yes, there are people who are merely putting on an act of charity or kindness; this is apparent even within the body of Christ.

But the good deeds we see from people, Christian or non, are often fruits and not acts. Fruits are from the heart, and the heart is where God's law resides; this is possible even if that person has not been made aware of it yet or accepted Christ as Savior.

 

With this new realization, I cannot, in good conscience, continue to argue this point. AM, I concede this debate to you.

The point of the debate, which addresses your question is that they are all pretty much equal. Christianity may seem more special to you, but this is because of it's direct context of the culture you grew up with. It makes more "intuitive" sense because it's part of your native "language", so to speak. It's part of your inhereted background mythology which defines the shapes of the world for you. This is true of ALL systems. The debate was about "Fruits of the Spirit". "You shall know them by their fruits". An evil tree cannot produce good fruit. Yet in all these systems, all supported by their created mythologies, their systems of symbolic imagery, their stories, their art, their culture, is the means to thriving as human beings.

 

Christianity does this, when it's functional and not broken, as well as all others. It is not head and shoulders above all others, and human beings of other systems are NOT lost. They produces as much, and sometime more and healthier fruit than those using the Christian myth system. What "Truth" is, is what works. And sometimes, in some contexts, what may work at one time in one place may not work now, or worse become detrimental. One can easily point to both within Christianity, as well as any other mythological system.

 

As Kat22 above recognized, that even though they haven't accepted her "symbol" (Christ as Savior), they are in fact producing good fruit. Their systems work. So to answer your question, which produces as long lasting effect on humanity? All of them. That's what they're for. The fact we are all functioning for the most part in peace and as a society is an attestation to that. Christianity is but one branch of the whole tree. Not the whole tree itself.

[Badger]

So what claims does it make good, and what does it achieve? What truth was it the authors aimed at?

Should I know?

[Ouroboros]

So what claims does it make good, and what does it achieve? What truth was it the authors aimed at?

Should I know?

No, I'm not going to hold you to knowing what they meant to say.

 

I think that's the problem with the statement they made (and I suspect you can see it too). It's kind of like ISO 9000 quality standards. It's a matter of each and every company to specify their own standards and quality, and they just have to keep up to their own standard. With so many different kinds of denominations, it's hard to say if Christianity or the Bible is achieving what it was supposed to. The meanings differ between the Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, etc, or maybe it doesn't? If the goal is to overtake the world and convert everyone to Christianity, and they all agree this is the objective, then I rather say the Bible and Christianity is failing.