fett on 25/1/2007 at 02:32
Quote Posted by Uranium - 235
I'm not going to pretend I'm 100% familiar with the Bible but I'm willing to bet I know more then your average Christian does. The fact that this terribly-written work of fiction has so many holes in it already means I really don't even need to try poking more in it.
Based on that post, I can assure you that you don't. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with the whole Leviticus/Deuteronomy thing but it's obvious you've not read any of my preceding posts concerning Hebrew history and the divisions of the Jewish scriptures. I guess we're done here.
Your rationale is interesting - you've not read the whole thing, you obviously know nothing about it's context, nor are you willing to discuss it (rhetoric doesn't count), yet it seems absurd to you so you'll dismiss it. Let's hope you don't approach more practical subjects in the same manner.
And to repeat for the record - I'm not a bible proponent, just a student of it. I am mainly trying to point out that atheists (Dawkins as a possible example) are using bad, outdated, and ignorant arguments that have no impact on the average christian, because the arguments are inherently strawmen. Your rant on lesbianism is a recent example.
Ko0K on 25/1/2007 at 04:46
Atheists don't really need to resort to straw man logic, when facts are enough to support their position. The fact is that god is nowhere to be found but in the minds of the believers, and belief is far, far from factual knowledge.
Scots Taffer on 25/1/2007 at 05:10
Just as there is no defined factual force or reason for anything ever existing.
Ko0K on 25/1/2007 at 05:15
Okay. Facts have not ruled out god's existence (or the existence of anything, be it leprechauns or unicorns), either. So, then I believe that we should begin everything we say with "I believe."
Nicker on 25/1/2007 at 10:27
Actually fett, I do understand the bible as literature, although not with your thoroughness. I have no beef with literary and historical scholarship applied to the Bible and I recognise that it, and a host of other holy books (many far older and more cohesive), have important things to say about our history and even about our future. However, none of them constitute proof of the existence of deity nor do they stand as definitive texts on the nature of said deity, as their active believers insistently claim.
The subtleties and erudition of your arguments are of little practical relevance to the vast majority of contemporary practicing clerics. I know of no influential Christian or Muslim sect and certainly no prominent clerics, who would recognize or serve an academically emasculated Deity. The bible / koran / whatever, is held by them to be the complete, sole, literal and unquestionable word of God. Therein is the danger.
It is this claim to overarching authority, not only in theory but in direct application to social and legal practice, which is at issue. Dawkins is really addressing the people who prefer to keep their scripture closed because it has more thump that way. His own rhetoric may be clumsy but it has far greater subtlety than the doctrine of eternal damnation, martyrdom or liquidating infidels.
If one took Bulfinch’s Mytholgy and insisted it be made the basis of secular law, the foundation of science and the ultimate source for school curriculum, there would be public outrage. If one diverted NASA funds to build a probe to search for Apollo’s nocturnal stables or insisted that all engineering faculties at accredited universities maintain active temples to Hephaestus, the condemnation would be swift and almost unanimous. Why should adherents of Christianity or Islam, rather than some other arbitrary mythology, be given secular authority owing to the accidents of history which placed them in the ascendant?
IMHO this is the issue, not the quality of Dawkin's theological scholarship.
Matthew on 25/1/2007 at 11:21
Quote Posted by Nicker
all engineering faculties at accredited universities maintain active temples to Hephaestus
Actually, that would be pretty rocking.
fett, I had understood that some parts of the rules in Leviticus applied only to the priests, whereas the rest applied to the national of Israel as a whole. Is that a mistake on my part?
Thirith on 25/1/2007 at 13:09
Quote Posted by Nicker
The subtleties and erudition of your arguments are of little practical relevance to the vast majority of contemporary practicing clerics. I know of no influential Christian or Muslim sect and certainly no prominent clerics, who would recognize or serve an academically emasculated Deity. The bible / koran / whatever, is held by them to be the complete, sole, literal and unquestionable word of God. Therein is the danger.
Actually, here in Switzerland you'd be laughed out of most Protestant and Catholic churches if you went there voicing a literal, uncritical understanding of the bible. I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but I have the faint suspicion that mainstream religion on the whole is more open-minded, inquisitive and critical of received wisdom than on the other side of the Atlantic.
fett on 25/1/2007 at 13:54
Quote Posted by Nicker
Actually fett, I do understand the bible as literature, although not with your thoroughness. I have no beef with literary and historical scholarship applied to the Bible and I recognise that it, and a host of other holy books (many far older and more cohesive), have important things to say about our history and even about our future. However, none of them constitute proof of the existence of deity nor do they stand as definitive texts on the nature of said deity, as their active believers insistently claim.
The subtleties and erudition of your arguments are of little practical relevance to the vast majority of contemporary practicing clerics. I know of no influential Christian or Muslim sect and certainly no prominent clerics, who would recognize or serve an academically emasculated Deity. The bible / koran / whatever, is held by them to be the complete, sole, literal and unquestionable word of God. Therein is the danger.
It is this claim to overarching authority, not only in theory but in direct application to social and legal practice, which is at issue. Dawkins is really addressing the people who prefer to keep their scripture closed because it has more thump that way. His own rhetoric may be clumsy but it has far greater subtlety than the doctrine of eternal damnation, martyrdom or liquidating infidels.
If one took Bulfinch's Mytholgy and insisted it be made the basis of secular law, the foundation of science and the ultimate source for school curriculum, there would be public outrage. If one diverted NASA funds to build a probe to search for Apollo's nocturnal stables or insisted that all engineering faculties at accredited universities maintain active temples to Hephaestus, the condemnation would be swift and almost unanimous. Why should adherents of Christianity or Islam, rather than some other arbitrary mythology, be given secular authority owing to the accidents of history which placed them in the ascendant?
IMHO this is the issue, not the quality of Dawkin's theological scholarship.
Spot on Nicker. This IS the danger, (though I don't think it's as urgent as Dawkins seems to). As America becomes more of a melting pot, lets hope more people start asking the question in your next to last paragraph there.
Even when I was a christian, I wholeheartedly embraced this approach to religion as it applied to society. I took a lot of flak because, I think it's ridiculous to impose my beliefs on other people (which btw is not what the NT instructs believers to do EVAR). Consider this - if christians interacted with society as honest politicians, good filmmakers, prolific writers and musicians, and objective scientists, I suspect they would have far more impact on the world at large than they do by lobbying to legislate the christian view of morality, boycotting Disneyworld, or trying to cram creationism into biology curriculum.
Of course, when I took this stand (sometimes publicly) it was not received well in the christian community (though the church I pastored was attended by about 150 folks who had pretty much the same view). If the church would feed the poor, care for the sick, and shut the hell up about politics, they would have a lot more credibility IMO. I was a christian, but also an American which means I may not agree with how you live or what you say, but I should be willing to defend your right to do or say it (Voltiare...I think?). Christians on the whole don't get that. In 2007, re-establishing prayer in school means EVERYONE gets to pray to their god, teaching creationism means we have to give equal time to the Buddist and Hindu view of creation, etc. They're so caught up in the fist-waving, they haven't looked around and realized it's not 1953 in the U.S. anymore.
Matthew - yeah you're right. Most of Leviticus prescribes temple procedure, the rest is given to Israel for identification purposes to separate them (and thus preserve them) from the surrounding pagan cultures which had incredibly violent religious practices usually aimed against women and small children. Can't have Israel wiping itself out through infant sacrifice if Messiah is going to be born from them can we now? This is the stuff people are hung up on such as 'don't combine two types of cloth' and 'don't eat shellfish' or 'don't get tatoos' and such. It's ridiculous to us now (and should be) because it was specific to the time and culture to separate Israel from the death cults of the Midianites, Ammorites, Hittites, and other semitic groups in that area. It's why christians roll their eyes when people pull verses from it to show how stupid the bible is - they're really only showing how stupid
they are because even young christians know that these things had narrrow and time sensitive application.
Matthew on 25/1/2007 at 14:03
Cheers. I'll go and think a bit harder about that.
The Alchemist on 25/1/2007 at 14:18
A'aight guys lets get back on the real issue at hand here: those fucking Mormons and others who go around at seven in the fucking morning knocking on peoples doors to blabber on endlessly about their church and how you should convert to save yourself from eternal damnation. And fuck are they polite as they explain to you how you are a horrible, horrible person and talk in the longest motherfucking run on sentences that allow you no chance to tell them to SHUT THE FUCK UP. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
